Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/prohibition01deba 


PROHIBITION 


Its  Relation  to 

TEMPERANCE,  GOOD 
MORALS  and  SOUND 
GOVERNMENT 


SELECTIONS 

From  the 

Writings  of  Men  who  have 
given  Thought  and  Study  to  this 
question  from  the  standpoint 
of  both  Theory  and  Practice 


Compiled  by 

JOSEPH  DEBAR 

CINCINNATI,  O. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE. 


Table  of  Contents 

Preface  

First  Half-Centur}^  of  Prohibition  in  America 

Compensation  

The  Question  of  Compensation 

Wm.  H.  Taft  on  Prohibition 

The  Crime  of  Confiscation 

The  Rev.  Charles  F.  Aked,  D.  D.,  and  His  Divine  Master 

Is  the  Art  of  Preaching  a Lost  One? 

The  National  Model  License  League 

Protest  Against  Prohibition  Idea  ‘fT". 

Charles  W.  Eliot,  Ex-President  of  Harvard  University,  on  Pro- 
hibition   

County  Local  Option  a Misnomer 

County  Option  Defined 

Samuel  Gompers  on  Prohibition 

Increase  of  the  Opium  Peril  in  Dry  Territory,  i-; 

Prohibition  the  Obstacle  to  Real  Reform 

Liquor  Not  a Provoker  of  Divorce 

Temperance  vs.  Prohibition 

The  Rights  of  the  Minority 

The  “Dive”  and  Why  It  Exists 

Intemperance  Not  the  Cause  of  Poverty 

Prohibition  and  Temperance 

Present  American  Business  Condition  in  Distilling  Industry 

Abraham  Lincoln’s  Temperance  Views. 

Liberty  vs.  Prohibition 

The  Demoralization  of  State  Prohibition 

The  Workings  of  a Dangerous  Power 

The  Church’s  Temperance  Duties 

Message  of  Governor  Malcolm  R.  Patterson  to  the  56th  General 
Assembly  of  Tennessee  on  the  Liquor  Question 


3 

5 

7 

21 

28 

36 

37 
53 
72 
74 
78 

81 

82 

91 

101 

102 

106 

132 

134 

142 

145 

151 

155 

157 

169 

171 

194 

196 

204 

212 


3 


4 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Governor  Patterson’s  Veto  of  the  State-Wide  Prohibition  Bill 

of  Tennessee 231 

Governor  Patterson’s  Veto  of  the  Manufacturers’  Bill 237 

Growth  in  Population — The  Effects  of  Prohibition  on  the  De- 
velopment of  States 242 

“Beer  and  the  City  Liquor  Problem” 244 

Theory  of  Prohibition 254  ' 

Prohibition  and  Crime 271 

Alcohol  from  a Scientific  Viewpoint 274 

Unusual  and  Tyrannical  Methods  Ineffective  277 

Bible  Wines 283 

The  Church  and  Politics 285 

Church  and  Legislation 292 

“The  Change  in  the  Feminine  Ideal” 299 

Limitations  of  Reform 301 

The  Committee  of  Fifty 303 


PREFACE 


INTO  all  great  controversies  which  agitate  the  public 
mind,  there  enter  always  many  questions  which  cloud 
the  vision  and  obscure  the  understanding  of  those  who 
have  no  fixed  views  of  their  own,  and  are  endeavoring  to 
learn  the  truth. 

Such  honest  seekers  after  knowledge  naturally  turn 
to  the  libraries  for  books  which  they  hope  will  enlighten 
them. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  volume  to  aid  those,  who, 
without  prejudice,  desire  to  ascertain  the  views  of  men 
who  have  studied  the  question  of  Prohibition  from  many 
angles — not  from  the  standpoint  of  emotionalism,  nor  yet 
for  any  purpose  of  sensationalism,  but  from  the  strong 
vantage  ground  of  practical  common  sense. 

Some  of  the  articles  oflered  in  these  pages  were  appa- 
rently written  for  use  in  local  campaigns ; they  bear  evi- 
dences of  local  color,  and  are  reproduced  for  the  gen- 
eral argument  contained  in  them,  rather  than  for  the 
specific  views  which  they  set  forth. 

In  making  selections,  the  compiler  of  this  work  has 
chosen  what  to  him  bore  the  ear-marks  of  sincerity,  reason, 
and  logic.  Appeals  to  the  passions  of  men  and  women 
were  not  favorably  considered. 

He  trusts  and  believes  that  this  book  may  do  much 
to  fill  a want  among  sincere  students  who  incline  to  a 
rational  solution  of  a greatly  overwrought  question. 

6 


First  Half-C  entury  of  Prokitition 
in  America 


During  the  colonial  days  nearly  all  of  the  colonies  from 
Maine  to  Georgia  enacted,  at  different  times,  laws  pro- 
hibiting, in  various  ways,  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
liquors,  and  in  some  instances  of  tobacco  also.  These  laws 
were  uniformly  disregarded,  and  were  productive  of  nu- 
merous evil  consequences.  So  impossible  was  it  to  enforce 
them,  and  so  great  were  the  abuses  growing  out  of  them, 
that  they  rarely  remained  upon  the  statute  books  more  than 
a few  years.  Such  experiments  were  repeated  from  time 
to  time,  always  with  like  results,  until  towards  the  Revo- 
lution, when  they  were  given  up. 

The  colonial  experience  with  prohibitory  laws  so  im- 
pressed the  people  that  during  the  first  seventy  years  of 
independence  little  or  no  effort  was  made  in  the  direction 
of  prohibition. 

Between  1850  and  i860,  however,  there  was  a revival 
of  prohibitory  efforts,  and  laws  were  enacted  in  various 
States  forbidding  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors. 

Maine  adopted  prohibition  in  1851,  and  still  has  it  on 
her  books,  but  it  has  never  been  enforced,  and  in  the  towns 
and  cities  of  that  State  the  open  saloon  is  as  familiar  and 
public  as  in  any  State  of  the  Union. 

Vermont  followed  Maine  in  1852  by  the  adoption  of 
prohibitory  laws,  and  kept  them  continually  on  her  statute 

7 


8 


PROHIBITION. 


books  for  half  a century.  In  the  effort  to  enforce  these 
laws  severe  and  unusual  punishments,  search  without  war- 
rant, and  denial  of  trial  by  jury  were  resorted  to,  the  ac- 
cused was  forced  to  testify  against  himself,  the  courts  be- 
came prosecuting  officers,  and  a process  of  injunction  was 
adopted  ruinous  to  innocent  parties.  Three  convictions 
were  allowed  for  a single  offense,  and  infonners  were  stim- 
ulated by  fees  and  shares  of  fines — and  all  to  no  purpose. 
Intemperance  and  contempt  of  law  steadily  increased.  In 
1902,  at  the  end  of  fifty  years,  the  report  of  the  United 
States  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  showed  that  one 
United  States  license  to  sell  liquor  was  issued  for  every 
120  voters  in  the  State.  In  the  fall  of  1902  a movement 
was  inaugurated  looking  to  the  adoption  of  a license  sys- 
tem. The  campaign  which  terminated  in  the  overthrow  of 
prohibition  was  in  many  respects  remarkable.  Arrayed  on 
the  side  of  license  were  the  progressive  elements  of  the 
State,  supported  by  men  in  all  walks  of  life,  of  the  best 
thought  and  highest  morals — men  profoundly  impressed 
with  the  futility  and  bad  results  of  the  law.  Arrayed  with 
the  prohibitionists  were  the  illicit  liquor  sellers,  who  pre- 
ferred the  unrestricted  sale  under  prohibition  to  a regu- 
lated trade  under  license. 

On  four  separate  occasions  during  the  campaign  the 
voters  of  the  State  showed  their  disapproval  of  prohibi- 
tion— in  the  caucuses,  in  the  Legislature,  in  the  election 
when  they  voted  on  the  question  direct,  and  finall}’^  when 
the  towns  voted  on  license,  March  3,  1903.  On  the  last 
occasion  eighty-seven  towns — all  in  the  State  of  any  size — • 
declared  for  license. 

New  Hampshire  adopted  statutory  prohibition  in  1855. 
For  thirty-four  years  every  effort  was  made  to  enforce  it, 
with  results  so  far  from  satisfactory  and  so  injurious  that 
at  a popular  election  for  the  adoption  of  a prohibitor}' 
amendment  to  the  State  Constitution  held  April  12.  1889. 


HALF  CENTURY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


9 


the  amendment  was  defeated  by  an  enormous  majority. 
Two  counties  only  in  the  entire  State  gave  it  majorities. 

On  March  i8,  1903,  the  lower  house  of  the  Legislature 
passed  a license  bill  by  a vote  of  214  to  107.  A few  days 
later  the  bill  passed  the  Senate  by  a vote  of  three  to  one, 
and  on  March  27  received  executive  approval  and  license 
became  the  law  of  the  State.  The  cities  of  the  State  stood 
overwhelmingly  for  license,  their  vote  in  the  Legislature 
being  12 1 to  8 in  its  favor.  More  noteworthy  is  the  fact 
that  the  rural  members,  taken  separately,  voted  for  license 
in  the  proportion  of  97  to  76.  Representatives  of  both 
political  parties  were  also  in  a majority  in  favor  of  license. 

Massachusetts  tried  prohibition  from  1855  to  1870.  She 
found  the  law  vain  and  injurious,  and,  upon  the  testimony 
of  her  governors  and  best  citizens,  fatally  hurtful  to  the 
cause  of  temperance.  After  fifteen  years  of  earnest  trial 
she  also  repudiated  the  law,  and  when  in  April,  1889,  a 
strenuous  effort  was  made  to  again  engraft  prohibition 
upon  the  Constitution  of  the  State  it  failed.  The  farming 
population  threw  its  weight  with  that  of  the  cities  against 
the  amendment.  One  town  only  in  the  Commonwealth  gave 
it  a majority. 

The  campaign  was  one  of  exceptional  interest.  The 
terms  and  time  of  the  fight  were  dictated  by  the  prohibition- 
ists. They  were  ably  led  and  their  cause  was  advocated  by 
hundreds  of  speakers.  They  deluged  the  State  with  litera- 
ture and  brought  into  action  an  army  of  workers  remark- 
able for  its  numbers.  No  method  known  to  the  politician 
was  left  untried  in  the  efforts  to  carry  prohibition. 

As  elsewhere,  the  prohibitionists  tried  to  make  it  appear 
that  all  morality  was  on  their  side,  all  immorality  opposed 
to  them.  This  assumption  failed  of  its  purpose. 

The  influential  journals  of  the  State,  almost  to  a unit 
against  the  amendment,  exposed  the  fallacy,  and  threw 
their  influence  in  behalf  of  license.  Profiting  by  past  expe- 


10 


PROHIBITION. 


rience,  they  fought  with  a vigor  born  of  conviction.  The 
religious  papers  joined  hands  with  the  powerful  dailies,  and, 
making  conscience  of  the  fight,  the  Christian  Union,  the 
Congregationalist,  and  the  Christian  Register  hurled  their 
thunder  against  the  adoption  of  the  amendment. 

Nor  was  the  press  unsupported  by  the  church.  Many 
scores  of  the  most  eminent  clergymen  of  the  Commonwealth, 
comprising  the  brains,  the  dignity  and  the  worth  of  the 
ministry  of  the  State,  united  in  remonstrances  against  the 
adoption  of  prohibition.  Among  the  ministers  so  remon- 
strating were  such  men  as  Rev.  Dr.  Phillips  Brooks,  Rev. 
Dr.  Savage,  Rev.  Dr.  Brooks  Hereford,  Rev.  Dr.  Cyrus 
Bartol,  Rev.  Dr.  Peabody,  and  the  Rev.  Father  Conaty,  the 
president  of  the  Catholic  National  Total  Abstinence  So- 
ciety of  America,  and  many  others  of  celebrity — men  rev- 
ered for  character  and  purity  of  motive.  IMany  of  these 
great  divines  preached  from  their  pulpits  against  the  fanati- 
cism. United  with  them  in  the  crusade  against  prohibition 
were  five  of  the  seven  colleges  of  the  State.  President 
Eliot,  of  Harvard,  in  an  open  letter  condemned  the  effort 
to  make  men  good  by  law. 

The  opposition  to  the  amendment  was  none  the  less  re- 
markable among  the  lawyers,  either  in  vigor  or  in  char- 
acter of  those  opposed.  A protest  signed  by  nearly  five 
hundred  of  the  ablest  members  of  the  bar,  including  such 
names  of  national  reputation  as  E.  R.  Hoar,  ex-Governor 
Russell,  Charles  Theodore  Russell,  ex-Governor  Gardiner, 
ex-Governor  Rice,  Patrick  Collins,  and  others  equally 
known,  was  sent  broadcast  throughout  the  Commonwealth. 

Following  the  protest  of  the  lawyers  came  one  of  the 
physicians,  headed  by  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes,  and  sub- 
scribed to  by  nearly  all  the  eminent  doctors  of  the  State. 

The  merchants  and  business  men,  appreciating  the  dis- 
aster that  would  follow  prohibition,  also  united  in  a re- 


HALF  CENTURY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


II 


monstrance  to  which  were  appended  nearly  one  thousand 
names. 

Labor  united  with  capital  in  hostility  to  prohibition. 
The  labor  leaders,  declaring  it  their  belief  that  the  adoption 
of  the  amendment  would  seriously  affect  the  interests  of 
laboring  men,  urged  its  defeat. 

The  remonstrances,  supported  by  the  great  names  signed 
to  them,  coincided  with  the  experience  of  the  people  who 
had  tried  prohibition  and  knew  by  its  fruits  what  it  was. 
Statistics  were  not  wanting  to  show  its  evil  effects  when 
it  was  formerly  the  law  of  the  State.  These  statistics  were 
above  suspicion,  as  they  were  prepared  under  the  order  of 
the  Governor  and  Legislature  by  the  Hon.  Carroll  D. 
Wright,  one  of  the  most  eminent  and  reliable  statisticians 
of  America.  They  show  the  alarming  extent  of  intem- 
perance under  prohibition,  and  the  rapid  decrease  of  drunk- 
enness when  the  prohibitory  statute  was  replaced  by  a li- 
cense law. 

The  tax  question  cut  a considerable  figure  in  the  cam- 
paign. The  enormous  loss  of  revenue  from  licenses  and  the 
consequent  heavy  increase  in  taxes  were  so  obvious  that 
the  prohibitionists  did  not  attempt  to  argue  on  this  question. 
United  with  the  prohibitionists  were  the  low  saloon  and 
dive  keepers  of  the  State,  and  these  strove  for  prohibition 
with  a zeal  worthy  of  a higher  motive  and  a better  cause. 
They  worked  for  prohibition  in  order  that  there  might  be 
no  license,  and  that  under  prohibition  they  might  have  an 
opportunity  of  conducting  an  illegal  and  surreptitious  traffic. 
They  could  not  conduct  such  illegal  business  while  other 
men  held  licenses,  because  no  man  would  sneak  through 
alleys  and  by-ways  to  patronize  them.  This  fact  convinced 
earnest  and  conservative  people  that  prohibition  meant  un- 
restricted traffic,  and  the  amendment  was  defeated  by  44,552 
majority. 

In  1853  Rhode  Island  adopted  prohibition,  and  for  ten 


12 


PROHIBITION. 


years  gave  it  the  fairest  trial  possible.  In  1863  the  results 
had  been  so  injurious  that  the  law  was  repealed.  Not  satis- 
fied with  the  first  experience,  she  again  adopted  prohibition 
in  1886.  The  second  experiment  proved  far  more  disastrous 
than  the  first,  and  in  June,  1889,  the  people  of  that  State 
repudiated  prohibition  at  the  polls  by  the  enormous  ma- 
jority of  18,597  out  of  a total  vote  of  less  than  38,000,  the 
vote  cast  against  prohibition  being  nearly  three  to  every 
one  in  its  favor.  When  the  law  was  adopted  in  1886  it  had 
a majority  of  5,883.  Three  years  of  experience  had,  there- 
fore, changed  the  views  of  more  than  four-fifths  of  the 
voters  of  the  State  on  this  subject.  History  does  not  pre- 
sent any  more  striking  change  of  public  opinion  upon  any 
subject. 

As  early  as  1854  Connecticut  placed  prohibition  in  the 
organic  law  of  the  State,  and  for  eighteen  years  used  the 
utmost  power  of  the  Commonwealth  for  its  enforcement,  and 
finally  gave  up  the  experiment  in  1872.  In  October,  1889, 
an  effort  was  made  to  again  engraft  prohibition  upon  the 
State  Constitution,  and  resulted  in  an  inglorious  failure, 
nearly  three  votes  to  one  being  cast  against  the  measure. 

New  York  passed  prohibitory  laws  in  1854,  tried  them 
for  two  years,  and  gave  up  the  experiment  as  hopeless. 

The  first  attempt  at  prohibition  in  Pennsylvania  was 
made  in  June,  1889.  The  question  was  thoroughly  discussed 
throughout  the  State,  and  after  thorough  enlightenment  the 
Keystone  State  declared  by  a majority  of  194,556 — the 
greatest  ever  cast  by  any  State  on  any  subject  since  the 
foundation  of  the  Union — that  the  law  was  not  suited  to  it 
or  helpful  to  the  cause  of  temperance. 

^ In  1855  Maryland  adopted  prohibition.  In  no  State 
was  the  result  so  disastrous  and  so  freighted  with  evils. 
Bad  results  followed  the  law  so  rapidly  that  after  a few 
months’  trial  it  was  repealed,  and  there  has  been  no  dis- 


HALF  CENTURY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


13 


position  on  the  part  of  that  State  to  repeat  the  severe  lesson 
it  then  received. 

In  the  same  year  Delaware  adopted  prohibition,  and 
tried  for  two  years  to  enforce  it,  but  in  1857  gave  up  the 
effort,  and  has  since  shown  no  inclination  to  again  try  the 
experiment. 

Ohio  also  repeated  the  bitter  experience.  The  law  in 
that  State,  which  was  adopted  in  1855,  was  short-lived,  and 
was  wiped  from  the  statute  books  during  the  same  year. 

Among  the  States  which  persisted  in  the  experiment  of 
prohibition  Michigan  may  be  enumerated.  This  State 
adopted  the  law  in  1853,  and  for  twenty-two  years  endeav- 
ored by  the  whole  power  of  the  State  and  by  extraordinary 
police  laws  and  regulations  to  enforce  it,  only  to  find  the 
effort  futile.  She  abandoned  the  policy  in  1875,  and  when  a 
faction  endeavored  to  again  saddle  it  upon  the  State  in 
1887  the  people  overwhelmed  it  at  the  polls.  In  the  words 
of  Gen.  R.  A.  Alger,  “You  can  not  talk  prohibition  to  the 
people  of  Michigan.  They  have  tried  it  and  know  what  a 
dire  failure  it  is.” 

Indiana  passed  prohibitory  measures  in  1855.  They 
were  never  enforced,  and  were  soon  abandoned.  In  1882  a 
second  effort  was  made  to  impose  prohibition  on  the  State, 
but  was  defeated  by  the  biggest  majority  cast  in  that  State 
on  any  question  for  twenty  years. 

Nebraska  in  the  same  year  adopted  prohibition,  but  its 
enforcement  was  found  impossible,  and  it  was  soon  repealed. 
A second  effort  was  made  in  1880,  and  was  defeated  by  a 
decisive  majority  of  45,000. 

The  Legislature  of  Illinois  enacted  a prohibitory  law  in 
1855,  but  it  was  so  unpopular  with  the  people  of  the  State 
that  in  the  election  in  the  fall  of  the  same  year  both  the 
law  and  its  champions  were  buried. 

Twice  the  effort  was  made  to  fasten  prohibition  on  Wis- 
consin, and  twice  the  governor  interposed  his  veto,  with 


14 


PROHIBITION. 


the  hearty  concurrence  of  the  people.  This  was  in  1855. 
Since  that  time  a more  liberal  spirit  has  guided  the  State. 

Under  prohibition  Iowa  witnessed  an  exodus  of  her 
population,  a depression  in  her  commercial  interests,  ac- 
companied by  great  moral  retrogression  and  a complete 
revolution  in  her  political  status.  The  law  was  enacted  in 
1884.  So  calamitous  were  the  results  that  in  obedience  to 
overwhelming  popular  demand  it  was  modified  and  prac- 
tically abandoned  a few  years  ago. 

Kansas  has  been  under  prohibitory  laws  for  the  past 
twenty-two  years,  having  adopted  them  in  1882.  That  they 
are  ineffective  is  demonstrated  by  the  open  saloons  and 
secret  joints  in  all  the  towns  and  cities  of  the  State.  That 
they  are  detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the  State  is  proved 
by  the  depression  in  her  commercial,  manufacturing,  and 
industrial  enterprises,  and  by  the  enormous  tax  rates  prev- 
alent, ranging  from  four  to  eight  per  cent.  That  they 
have  not  been  beneficial  to  the  moral  tone  of  the  State  is 
evinced  by  the  fact  that  thousands  of  the  best  men  of  the 
State  earnestly  advocate  the  overthrow  of  the  law. 

An  effort  was  made  in  1887  to  put  prohibition  into  the 
Constitution  of  Texas  and  failed  by  a majority  of  92,661. 

A few  months  later  a similar  effort  was  made  in  Ten- 
nessee, and  was  likewise  overwhelmed  by  a majority  of 
27,693. 

In  the  fall  of  the  same  year  Oregon  submitted  a pro- 
hibitory amendment,  which  shared  a similar  fare,  fully  two- 
thirds  of  the  voters  of  the  State  casting  their  ballots 
against  it. 

In  November,  1888,  West  Virginia  voted  on  the  ques- 
tion. The  subject  was  thoroughly  discussed,  investigations 
into  the  workings  of  the  law  in  other  States  were  care- 
fully made,  and  a full  vote  was  polled,  resulting  in  the 
defeat  of  the  amendment  by  a majority  of  35.574.  Only 
two  counties  in  the  State  gave  prohibition  majorities. 


HALF  CENTURY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


15 


North  Dakota  adopted  prohibition  in  1889  by  a scant 
majority  of  1,159.  The  experience  of  the  State  has  been 
the  usual  one.  The  law  has  not  been  enforced.  The  sale 
of  liquors  ha's  in  no  way  diminished,  and  the  only  effect 
has  been  the  substitution  of  the  unlicensed,  irresponsible 
secret  joint  for  the  open,  regulated  saloon. 

South  Dakota  adopted  prohibition  in  1889.  Every  pos- 
sible means  was  exhausted  in  an  unavailing  effort  to  en- 
force it.  Without  decreasing  the  sale  of  liquors,  serious 
evils  sprang  up  as  an  outgrowth  of  the  law.  The  develop- 
ment of  the  State,  which  had  been  phenomenal  during  the 
ten  years  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  measure,  was  brought 
to  a standstill.  In  1896  prohibition  was  overwhelmingly  re- 
jected and  the  State  returned  to  a license. 

The  experience  of  communities  which  have  tried  local 
prohibition  or  local  option  differs  in  no  way  from  that  of 
the  States  which  have  tried  prohibition.  It  has  uniformly 
failed  to  prohibit  and  brought  in  its  wake  a long  train  of 
attendant  evils  and  disaster.  From  1890  to  1903,  1,853 
communities  have  voted  on  the  subject  of  local  option.  In 
510  of  these  communities  local  option  was  defeated.  In  the 
remaining  1,343  communities  local  option  carried.  In  a few 
of  these  commmunities  elections  have  been  held  frequently, 
with  results  alternating  between  license  and  prohibition. 

In  592  communities  local  option  is  nominally  in  force, 
but  in  a few,  if  any,  is  there  any  real  enforcement,  while 
the  towns  have  suffered  severely. 

In  751  communities  in  which  at  the  first  election  local 
option  carried  it  has  since  been  defeated,  the  communities 
being  satisfied  by  experience  that  it  was  a failure.  The 
aggregate  majorities  in  favor  of  local  option  in  all  such 
communities  at  the  first  election  on  the  subject  was  108,942. 
The  aggregate  majorities  for  license  in  the  same  communi- 
ties when  local  option  was  repudiated  was  159,611. 

Notable  among  the  communities  adopting  local  option 


i6 


PROHIBITION. 


was  the  city  of  Atlanta.  In  less  than  two  years  this  city 
saw  1,100  of  its  houses  vacant,  its  debt  enlarged,  its  taxes 
increased,  and  drunkenness  more  riotous  than  had  ever  be- 
fore been  known.  With  the  promptness  that  the  case  de- 
manded the  city  repudiated  the  law  in  November,  1887,  by  a 
majority  which  left  little  hope  of  ever  again  imposing  it 
upon  her  people. 

Prohibition  has  been  no  more  successful  in  Canada  than 
in  the  United  States.  A few  years  ago  a law  was  passed 
similar  to  those  in  force  in  the  States  of  the  Union,  and 
was  given  a sincere  and  earnest  trial.  In  April,  1889,  it 
was  repealed.  Every  town  and  city  in  Canada  which  voted 
on  that  day  rejected  prohibition. 

Thomas  Jefferson  knew  human  nature  when  he  said : 
“Tell  any  man  he  shall  not  do  a thing  or  have  a thing,  and 
that  thing  becomes  the  very  one  which  he  wishes  to  do  or 
have.”  The  fruit  of  only  one  tree  in  the  Garden  of  Eden 
was  forbidden,  yet  Adam  and  Eve  ate  of  that  tree. 

The  Roman  Empire  tried  to  destroy  wine  culture  in 
Gaul  and  ignominiously  failed. 

In  the  early  days  of  Rome  women  were  forbidden  to 
drink  wine,  and  Seneca  bitterly  laments  the  violation  of 
the  law. 

In  the  eleventh  century  it  was  declared  a capital  offense 
to  sell  drink  in  Scotland.  The  houses  of  the  liquor  dealers 
were  burned  and  they  themselves  banished.  In  less  than 
a generation,  under  the  effect  of  this  law,  drunkenness  be- 
came more  general  and  common  in  Scotland  than  it  has 
ever  been  in  any  other  country  in  the  world. 

In  England  by  act  (9  George  II.  Ch.  23)  a law  prohibi- 
tive in  effect  was  enacted.  Of  the  effect  of  this  law  Smollet 
says;  “The  populace  soon  broke  through  all  restraint. 
Though  no  license  was  obtained  and  no  duty  paid,  liquor 
continued  to  be  sold  in  all  corners  of  the  streets,  and  the 
consumption  considerably  increased  every  year.”  ^Vhen  in 


HALF  CENTURY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


17 


1743  this  act  was  repealed  it  was  shown  that  the  consump- 
tion of  spirits  had  increased  during  the  life  of  the  act 
from  527,000  gallons  in  1864  to  7,160,000  gallons  in  1742. 
Herbert  Spencer,  commenting  on  the  effect  of  the  act, 
says : “Beyond  the  encouragement  of  fraud,  lying,  malice, 
cruelty,  murder,  contempt  of  law  and  conspicuous  crooked- 
ness, multitudinous  other  evils  were  caused  or  augmented 
and  indirect  demoralization  was  added  to  a direct  increase 
of  the  vice  aimed  at.” 

KANSAS  TESTIMONY. 

Wellington  (Kansas)  Standa/rd. 

“We  have  been  asked  to  give  a few  reasons  in  support 
of  our  assertion  that  the  prohibition  law  in  this  State  is  a 
failure. 

“We  comply  with  the  request,  and  state  below  some  of 
the  facts  that  have  weighed  materially  with  us; 

“In  our  judgment  the  prohibition  law  is  a failure. 

“Because  it  does  not  prohibit. 

“Because  it  is  not  enforced  in  a half-dozen  counties  in 
the  State. 

“Because  the  sentiment  of  the  people  is  against  its  en- 
forcement, and  such  being  the  case  local  officers  can  not 
secure  convictions  under  it. 

“Because  it  does  not  stop  the  sale  of  liquor,  inasmuch 
as  it  is  patent  to  all  who  care  to  know  that  all  who  want 
whisky  can  obtain  it. 

“Because  it  simply  transfers  the  sale  of  liquor  from 
licensed  saloon  keepers  to  Missouri  wholesalers  and  brewers, 
'^and  throws  the  retail  business  in  the  hands  of  jointists, 
bootleggers,  and  men  who  have  no  interest  in  good  order, 
morality  or  taxation. 

“Because  many  men  who  talk  prohibition  on  the  street 


i8 


PROHIBITION. 


and  in  church  receive  whisky  by  express,  and  drink  it  as 
they  always  did. 

“Because  these  same  men  are  hypocrites,  and  this  law, 
which  they  created,  partakes  of  their  nature. 

“Because  men  who  will  lie  on  no  other  occasion  go  to 
drug  stores  and  lie  like  Trojans  to  obtain  liquor  under 
the  law. 

“Because,  in  order  to  secure  a conviction  under  it,  wit- 
nesses must  be  secured  to  testify  that  they  have  purchased 
liquor  of  the  defendant,  which  is  almost  impossible.  Men 
will  not  go  back  on  their  ‘friends.’ 

“Because  even  when  that  is  accomplished  juries  not  in- 
frequently shirk  their  duty  to  abide  by  the  evidence,  and 
one  whisky  man  often  ‘holds  out’  on  eleven  prohibitionists 
and  secures  the  acquittal  of  the  offender. 

“Because  under  its  workings  whisky  is  sold,  and  no  one 
but  the  Government  realizes  a license  from  its  sale. 

“Because  its  enforcement  is  worse  than  a mockery  in 
every  large  city  in  the  State,  in  many  of  which  bars  are 
run  openly. 

“Because  everybody  is  aware  of  this  state  of  affairs,  and 
a contempt  for  all  law  is  bred  and  fostered. 

“Because  fruitless  efforts  to  convict  known  offenders 
roll  up  taxes  upon  law-abiding  citizens. 

“Because  in  the  city  of  Wellington,  for  instance,  city 
officers,  realizing  that  whisky  is  sold,  and  feeling  that  they 
can  not  convict  offenders,  override  all  law  and  exact  a 
tribute  from  joints  in  the  way  of  monthly  fines,  and  by  so 
doing  become  breakers  of  the  law  themselves  and  bring  the 
city  into  disrepute. 

“Because  the  same  feeling  and  same  line  of  action  ob- 
tains elsewhere. 

“Because  the  jointist  is  as  slippery  as  an  eel  and  as  hard 
to  catch.  The  man  who  sells  liquor  and  ‘uses’  around  the 
premises  is  not  the  ‘proprietor.’  That  individual  is  usually 


HALF  CENTURY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


19 


at  church  or  on  the  streets  enjoying  himself  and  mingling 
with  prohibitionists.  His  joint  sees  him  but  seldom. 

“Because  joints  sell  fluid  for  whisky  that  ruins  a drinker 
physically  in  a few  months. 

“Because  it  retards  immigration,  and  sends  lovers  of 
personal  liberty  to  less  favored  States. 

“Because,  believing  this,  they  think  the  law  inimicable  to 
the  State’s  best  interests,  and  quietly  elevate  their  eyebrows 
when  offenses  against  it  are  mentioned. 

“Because  the  law’s  most  ardent  supporters  are  the  opli- 
ticians,  and  ‘never-sweat  class,’  who  use  it  to  promote  per- 
sonal ambitions  to  the  detriment  of  the  people. 

“Because  people  often  tolerate  joints  because  they  be- 
lieve that  farmers  will  not  ‘trade’  where  they  can  not  buy 
liquors. 

“Because  express  companies  are  the  willing  aid  of  Mis- 
souri brewers  and  rum-sellers,  and  are  doing  what  they 
can  to  alleviate  the  ‘sufferings’  of  the  prohibition  Kansans. 

“Because  the  law  induces  people  to  keep  whisky  in  the 
house  and  drink  it  regularly  who  would  perhaps  only  drink 
it  occasionally  in  a high-license  saloon. 

“Because  it  is  built  on  a theory  contrary  to  human  na- 
ture. Forbid  an  American  to  do  anything,  and  he  will  do 
it  to  show  his  independence. 

“Because  property  owners  who  profess  to  be  temperance 
men  will  rent  their  buildings  and  rooms  freely  to  men  whom 
they  know  are  traffickers  in  liquors. 

“Because  as  long  as  whisky  is  made  men  will  drink  it. 

“Because  many  oppose  it,  alleging  that  if  the  whisky 
that  is  drank  in  the  State  was  manufactured  here,  corn  and 
a few  other  products  would  bring  a better  price. 

“Because  some  people,  many  of  them  politicians,  talk 
prohibition  with  whisky-ladened  breath. 

“Because  men  can  not  be  told  authoritatively  what  to 
eat,  drink  or  wear.  The  Creator  never  contemplated  any 


20 


PROHIBITION. 


such  thing,  or  He  would  not  have  endowed  human  beings 
with  reason. 

“Because  the  youth  of  Kansas  are  sharp,  and  can  ob- 
tain liquor  of  jointists  whenever  they  want  it.  The  pres- 
ent law  is  no  protection  to  them. 

“Because  the  law  is  a sentimental,  and  not  a prac- 
tical one.” 


C ompensation 

BY  REV.  DR.  E.  A.  WASSON. 


Reprinted  from  the  March,  iQio,  issue  of  “Pure  Products,” 
by  courtesy  of  Dr.  0.  W.  Willcox. 

This  is  a word  that  is  coming  to  be  heard  more  and 
more  in  the  discussion  of  the  liquor  question.  I predict 
that  it  will  become  a very  familiar  word  in  this  con- 
nection. Perhaps  if  we  had  used  it  more  in  the  past,  the 
liquor  issue  would  not  be  such  a muddle  as  it  is. 

It  was  less  than  two  years  ago  that  the  cable  brought 
us  news  of  the  limitation  of  the  saloon  business  proposed  in 
England.  It  appears  that,  in  the  judgment  of  many,  Eng- 
land had  more  saloons  than  the  legitimate  needs  of  the 
population  required.  These  surplus  saloons  were  to  be 
wiped  out.  This  news  would  have  been  a sweet  morsel 
in  the  mouth  of  our  American  prohibitionists,  had  it  not 
been  embittered  by  the  mention  of  compensation.  This 
compensation,  it  was  explained,  was  a money  commutation 
to  be  paid  the  saloon  keeper  (or  publican,  as  he  is  called 
in  England)  for  taking  away  his  livelihood ! Our  Puritans 
rubbed  their  eyes.  Had  they  read  right?  Was  it  possible 
that  anywhere  the  saloon  keeper  was  recognized  as  having 
some  rights?  That  he  was  actually  a human  being  with 
a right  to  make  a living  in  ways  recognized  by  law?  That 
he,  no  more  than  other  men,  was  not  to  be  ruthlessly  shorn 
of  his  business,  and  turned  out,  perhaps  penniless,  to  hunt 
a living  in  avenues  with  which  he  might  be  entirely  unfa- 
miliar? 

Yes,  England,  the  mother  of  representative  government, 

21 


22 


PROHIBITION. 


the  mother  of  free  States,  recognized  that  the  saloon  keeper 
was  a member  of  society  with  the  same  rights  as  other 
members  of  society.  If  the  public  interest  necessitated  the 
cancellation  of  any  of  these  rights,  then  society  must  make 
to  that  saloon  keeper  full  compensation  for  the  rights  that 
it  took  away.  The  man’s  honest  business  is  as  much  his 
property,  whether  he  built  it  up  or  bought  it,  as  the  land- 
owner’s lot  or  field  is  his  property.  If  the  community  needs 
that  lot  for  a public  building  or  that  field  for  a railroad 
right  of  way,  then  the  community  may  legally  and  morally 
take  that  land  away  from  its  owner;  but  only  after  it  has 
paid  that  owner  its  full  value,  arrived  at  by  an  impartial 
commission  of  assessment.  For  the  community  simply  to 
lay  its  hands  on  the  land  and  take  it  away,  without  paying 
for  it,  would  be  revolting  to  the  moral  sense.  It  may  be 
said  that  the  cases  are  not  parallel,  for  the  owner  of  the 
land  does  not,  through  such  ownership,  inflict  any  injury 
on  the  community ; whereas  the  saloon  keeper  is  a public 
enemy.  The  landowner  has  a moral  standing,  it  may  be 
said,  which  the  saloon  keeper  has  not.  But  this  objection 
is  fallacious.  It  ought  to  be  known  by  those  who  adduce 
it  that  the  moral  title  to  the  ownership  of  land  is  at  least 
as  open  to  attack  as  the  moral  title  of  the  saloon  business. 
There  is  a school  of  thinkers  who  hold  that  the  private 
ownership  of  land  is  mere  robbery.  Some  of  them  hold, 
too,  that  justice  requires  that  all  landowners  be  immediately 
expropriated,  without  compensation.  This,  however,  will 
never  be  done  by  peaceful  means.  If  the  community  ever 
decides  to  nationalize  the  land,  it  will  surely  compensate 
the  landowners.  For  my  part,  I think  a much  stronger 
case  can  be  made  out  for  the  saloon  business  than  for  private 
ownership  of  land.  No  antecedent  injustice  or  immorality 
inheres  in  the  liquor  business,  except  from  the  view-point 
of  the  extremest  fanaticism — a fanaticism  that  would  brand 
Jesus  Christ  as  immoral  for  converting  water  into  wine. 


COMPENSATION. 


23 


The  compensation  to  the  saloon  keeper  provided  for 
by  the  English  budget  is  real,  not  nominal.  It  is  substan- 
tial and  just,  if  not  generous.  The  publicans  are  treated 
with  as  much  consideration  as  if  they  were  grocers  or  dry 
goods  merchants — as  reputable  citizens,  not  as  outlaws. 
Where  the  publican  is  to  be  closed  out  by  the  Government, 
it  will  give  him  a sum  of  money  arrived  at  by  commuting 
the  good  will  of  his  business  for  the  following  period  of 
fourteen  years,  so  as  to  yield  him  the  benefit  of  the  labor 
he  has  put  into  building  the  business  up.  Of  course  this 
is  not  a sumi  that  can  be  computed  with  mathematical 
accuracy;  but  in  a generous  spirit,  that  seeks  to  do  what  is 
right,  a rough  justice  can  be  done. 

Now  that  is  a civilized  procedure.  It  is  a moral  pro- 
cedure. It  is  a Scriptural  procedure.  What  a contrast  to 
the  lynch  law  of  American  prohibition  communities ! Here 
is  Tennessee  wiping  out  at  one  moment  businesses  and 
properties  worth  millions  of  dollars,  without  any  charge 
of  lawlessness  or  wrong  against  the  brewers,  distillers,  and 
others  thus  robbed.  One  day  the  State  legalizes  and  licenses 
the  business,  and  asks  for  and  receives  a substantial  income 
for  the  privilege  of  conducting  it.  The  very  next  day  it 
destroys  this  business  which  it  has  legalized  and  encouraged, 
and  it  ruins  the  men  who,  relying  on  the  good  faith  of  the 
Government,  had  invested  their  money  and  energies  to  build 
it  up ! And  this  atrocious  thing  is  done  at  the  behest  of  an 
element  who  claim  to  be  moral  exemplars — in  fact,  to  have  a 
monopoly  of  the  virtue  of  the  community ! How  would 
they  themselves  like  to  have  their  lands  or  other  possessions 
made  worthless  by  law  witout  a penny  of  recompense? 

It  is  true  that  American  law  permits  this  injustice.  But 
that  does  not  make  it  right  or  politic.  The  English  law 
would  permit  it,  too,  were  the  English  people  inclined  to 
adopt  such  lynch  methods ; for  an  act  of  parliament  is 
supreme  and  final.  But  American  law  ought  to  forbid 


24 


PROHIBITION. 


such  moral  assault  and  battery,  and  whether  the  law  does 
or  not  the  moral  sense  of  the  people  ought  to  make  recourse 
to  it  impossible.  When  the  Government  says  to  the  citizen, 
“I  give  you  full  permission  to  engage  in  the  liquor  business, 
and  will  afford  you  the  same  protection  that  any  other 
industry  enjoys,  as  long  as  you  pay  your  license  and  obey 
the  law,”  it  assumes  the  moral  responsibility  of  protecting 
that  citizen  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  property  and  good  will 
that  he  may  build  up  in  that  business.  The  prohibitionists 
themselves  unwittingly  admit  the  justice  of  this  contention 
in  their  diatribes  against  the  legal  recognition  of  the  busi- 
ness. They  say  that  the  acceptance  of  license  fees  from  the 
liquor  business  makes  the  Government  morally  a partner  in 
that  business  and  constitutes  a recognition  of  its  rightful- 
ness. In  this  they  are  right.  The  Government  is,  in  a moral 
sense,  a partner  in  every  business  that  it  recognizes  and  pro- 
tects. Without  that  recognition  the  business  could  not 
flourish.  Now  the  Government  has  no  right,  in  a fit  of 
superior  virtue,  to  rise  and  excoriate  its  partner  and  then 
fling  him  outside  of  the  breastworks.  In  a sense,  the  Govern- 
ment is  the  predominant  partner  in  every  legitimate  busi- 
ness ; that  is,  it  has  the  power  to  dominate  the  other  partner. 
If  it  decides  to  quit  the  business  and  put  an  end  to  it,  it  has 
that  right.  But  it  ought  not  to  insist  on  putting  the  partner 
out  of  business  without  seeing  that  at  least  he  quits  whole. 
If  the  Government  wishes  to  abolish  the  business,  then  it 
ought  to  buy  its  partner  out  at  a fair  price ; after  which, 
but  not  before,  it  will  have  the  moral  right  to  wipe  out  the 
whole  enterprise.  The  Government  may  have  a right  to 
destroy  its  own  property,  if  it  sees  fit;  but  it  has  no  moral 
right  to  destroy  other  people’s  property.  Lincoln  wished  to 
buy  out  the  slave-owners,  and  only  their  folly  prevented 
a peaceful  settlement  on  a money  basis.  The  nation  had 
permitted  slavery  and  encouraged  it,  Lincoln  reasoned,  and 
if  the  nation  had  become  too  virtuous  to  endure  it,  then  the 


COMPENSATION. 


25 


nation  should  pay  the  bill.  His  reasoning  was  sound.  It 
is  the  reasoning  of  England  concerning  the  surplus  saloons. 
The  nation  has  legalized  and  fostered  them.  If  the  nation 
wishes  to  close  a portion  of  them,  then  it  is  for  the  nation 
to  pay  the  bill.  And  England  proposes,  honorably,  to  do  it. 
A man  or  a people  ought  to  pay  for  their  own  virtue,  not 
to  compel  someone  else  to  pay  for  it.  The  bigamist  who 
repents  of  his  sin  will  recognize  that  he  still  owes  an  obli- 
gation to  the  woman  and  the  children  that  the  law  will  not 
allow  him.  If  he  coolly  abandons  them  on  the  ground  that 
he  has  turned  virtuous,  he  is  a contemptible  cur.  If  the 
community  thinks  itself  too  good  for  the  saloon,  then  let  it 
pay  for  its  virtue  itself,  and  not  unload  the  whole  cost  on  the 
saloon  keeper,  brewer  and  distiller.  Having  enjoyed  what 
the  prohibitionists  would  call  the  wages  of  sin,  let  it  not  ex- 
pect to  get  its  virtue  for  nothing.  No  virtue  that  begins 
by  inflicting  cruelties  and  hardships  on  old  associates  is  any 
better  than  pecksniffian  cant.  Would  it  not  be  more  civilized 
and  charitable  for  the  Government  to  say,  “Here,  old  part- 
ner, I have  become  convinced  that  this  business  is  wrong  all 
through.  I have  decided  to  quit,  and  as  you  can  not  keep 
it  up  without  my  permission  you  will  have  to  quit,  too. 
But  as  it  is  I that  am  making  the  change,  and  as  you  are 
poor  and  I am  rich,  I will  see  that  you  are  fully  paid  for 
what  I am  depriving  you  of.  We  will  liquidate  the  business, 
and  you  will  get  the  full  value  of  what  you  are  surren- 
dering.” 

All  this  from  the  standpoint  of  right  and  wrong.  But 
sound  policy  would  suggest  the  same  course.  It  would 
be  far  better  for  the  community  if  each  license  to  make  or 
sell  liquor  ran  for  a good  long  period,  such  as  fifteen 
or  twenty  or  twenty-five  years.  Then  the  holder  of  the 
license  would  have  a sense  of  security  that  he  has  not  now. 
He  would  know  that  as  long  as  he  behaved  himself,  his 
business  was  secure.  And  it  would  be  to  his  interest  to 


26 


PROHIBITION. 


build  up  a respectable  trade.  At  present,  in  many  com- 
munities, where  it  is  an  annual  or  biennial  see-saw  between 
prohibition  and  license,  the  liquor  man  is  always  on  the 
anxious  bench.  When  he  is  licensed,  the  temptation  is  to 
work  the  business  for  all  it  is  worth,  to  get  the  last  penny 
out  of  it,  against  the  evil  days  that  may  come.  In  this,  it 
is  true,  he  is  not  wise;  for  his  true  policy  would  be  to 
avoid  every  occasion  of  offense,  so  that  the  evil  days  might 
be  averted.  But  liquor  men  are  no  more  far-sighted  than 
others,  and  are  apt  to  prefer  a present  advantage  to  a future 
chance.  Uncertainty  demoralizes  in  every  branch  of  busi- 
ness. To  do  and  to  be  their  best,  men  must  be  able  to  count 
on  what  is  coming.  Civilization  means  the  reduction  and 
final  elimination  of  risks.  It  is  almost  better,  sometimes, 
that  a question  should  be  settled  wrong  than  not  settled 
at  all. 

The  short-term  license  operates  disastrously  in  another 
way.  It  tends  to  keep  the  better  class  of  men  out  of  the 
business.  Where  the  promised  rewards  are  but  modest  at 
best,  conservative  citizens  will  hesitate  about  entering  a 
business  where,  without  the  least  fault  of  theirs,  they  may 
be  closed  out  in  a year  or  two. 

I think  that  we  must  come  ultimately  to  the  long-term 
license.  How  long,  would  depend  on  the  circumstances.  In 
a new  community,  where  the  character  of  the  development 
can  hardly  be  predicted,  the  term  might  not  be  so  long 
as  in  a settled  community.  In  no  instance  should  it,  in  my 
judgment,  be  less  than  twelve  years,  and  I should  prefer 
fifteen.  The  license  should  be  subject  to  forfeit  for  gross 
or  repeated  misconduct.  And  the  absolute  control  of  the 
community  over  the  traffic  might  be  maintained  by  making 
every  license  subject  to  cancellation  at  the  will  of  the  com- 
munity, on  payment  of  a just  compensation  to  the  holder 
of  the  license  for  its  unexpired  term.  This  provision  for 
compensation  would  remove  the  subject  from  the  sphere 


COMPENSATION. 


27 


of  whims,  passions  and  prejudices,  and  bring  it  within  the 
area  of  solid,  substantial  interests.  Where  the  community 
knew  that  prohibition  would  mean  the  purchase  of  perhaps 
half  a dozen  or  fifty  or  a hundred  licenses  with,  say  an 
average  of  six  or  seven  years  to  run,  they  would  think 
several  times  before  voting  taxes  out  of  their  pockets  for 
such  a purpose.  The  result  would  be  that  they  would  dis- 
criminate between  the  good  and  the  bad  saloons,  and  would 
take  measures  to  put  the  bad  saloons  out  of  business,  which 
would  cost  the  community  nothing.  The  good  saloons,  or 
the  relatively  good,  would  be  left  in  possession  of  the  field. 
Freed  from  the  competition  of  the  bad  saloons,  they  would 
find  it  profitable  to  do  right  rather  than  to  do  wrong.  At 
present,  to  meet  such  competition,  they  are  tempted  to 
descend  to  the  same  level. 

A long-term  license,  say  of  fifteen  years,  subject  to 
forfeit  for  serious  misconduct,  and  to  cancellation  at  any 
time  with  just  compensation  for  the  unexpired  term  of  the 
license,  would  do  more  than  any  other  single  measure  to 
rid  the  liquor  business  of  the  abuses  now  associated  with 
it.  For  this  very  reason  it  will  be  fought  by  the  thick-and- 
thin  prohibitionists.  But  for  this  reason  it  should  be  favored 
and  urged  by  those  who  believe  in  regulation  and  improve- 
ment, rather  than  in  destruction.  Even  habits  and  institu- 
tions that  are  wholly  evil  can,  at  the  present  stage,  seldom 
be  abolished,  whereas  they  can  be  made  less  injurious.  How 
much  more,  then,  an  institution  like  the  liquor  business, 
which  almost  everywhere,  almost  always,  and  almost  by 
all,  has  been  considered  a proper  and  legitimate  industry. 


Tke  Question  of  Compensation 


BY  HUGH  F.  FOX. 


The  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  declares  that  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of 
life,  liberty  or  property  without  due  process  of  law. 

This  is  the  saving  guarantee  of  our  civilization,  the 
corner-stone  of  social  order.  To  maintain  this  principle 
inviolate  is  the  highest  function  of  our  Government,  the 
most  exalted  care  and  responsibility  of  our  Judiciar)^ 

Yet,  by  a memorable  decision  rendered  in  the  year 
1887,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  held  that 
the  brewing  and  distilling  properties  of  the  country,  being 
subject  to  the  police  powers  of  the  State,  were  not  enti- 
tled to  the  guarantee  afforded  and  covenanted  in  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment.  Passing  upon  a claim  for  compensa- 
tion on  behalf  of  certain  brewers  in  Kansas,  whose  busi- 
ness had  been  destroyed  and  whose  property  had  been 
rendered  valueless  by  the  Prohibition  law,  the  Court,  after 
postulating  that  “the  public  health,  the  public  morals  and 
the  public  safety  may  be  endangered  by  the  general  use 
of  intoxicating  drinks,”  pronounced  judgment  in  these 
terms : 

“A  prohibition  simply  upon  the  use  of  property  for 
purposes  that  are  declared  by  valid  legislation  to  be  in- 
jurious to  the  health,  morals  or  safety  of  the  community  can 
not,  in  any  just  sense,  be  deemed  a taking  or  an  appropria- 
28 


QUESTION  OF  COMPENSATION. 


29 


tion  of  property  for  the  public  benefit.  . . . The  power 

which  the  States  have  of  prohibiting  such  use  by  indi- 
viduals of  their  property  as  will  be  prejudicial  to  the  health, 
the  morals  or  the  safety  of  the  public  is  not — and,  con- 
sistently with  the  safety  and  existence  of  organized  so- 
ciety, can  not  be — burdened  with  the  condition  that  the 
State  must  compensate  such  individual  owners  for  pecu- 
niary losses  they  may  sustain  by  reason  of  their  not  being 
permitted,  by  a noxious  use  of  their  property,  to  inflict 
injury  upon  the  community.” 

Twenty  years  have  passed  since  this  celebrated  deci- 
sion was  uttered,  and  it  is  still  generally  regarded  as 
having  finally  settled  the  question  of  compensation  for  the 
liquor  interests.  Meantime  the  march  of  prohibition,  with 
its  attendant  spoliation  and  confiscation,  has  continued, 
and  is  now  far  more  menacing,  with  greater  possibilities  of 
ruin,  than  when  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  passed 
upon  the  Kansas  cases.  Therefore,  it  may  be  permitted 
to  us  to  take  some  small  comfort  in  the  reflection  that  even 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  been  known  to  “re- 
verse itself,”  and  we  are  further  assured  that  before  a still 
higher  tribunal — the  Court  of  Conscience — nothing  is  set- 
tled until  it  is  settled  right. 

JUDGE  brewer’s  STRONG  DISSENT. 

The  decision  referred  to  reversed  a decree  of  Judge 
Brewer,  then  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Kansas, 
now  himself  a member  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court. 
Judge  Brewer  had  held  that  “the  State  can  prohibit  the 
defendant  from  brewing,  but  before  it  can  do  so  it  must  pay 
the  value  of  the  property  destroyed.” 

Evidently  Judge  Brewer,  although  reversed,  was  not 
convinced,  for  speaking  before  the  Yale  Law  School  a 
few  years  later  (in  1891)  he  said;  “I  am  here  to  say  to 


30 


PROHIBITION. 


you  in  no  spirit  of  obnoxious  or  unpleasant  criticism  upon 
the  decision  of  any  tribunal  or  judge,  that  the  demands 
of  absolute  and  eternal  justice  forbid  that  any  private  prop- 
erty, legally  acquired  and  legally  held,  should  be  spoliated 
or  destroyed  in  the  interests  of  public  health,  morals  or 
welfare,  without  compensation.” 

Referring  to  the  action  in  which  he  had  been  reversed, 
he  made  this  statement,  at  once  a plea  and  a justification: 

“There  were  four  or  five  breweries,  with  machinery  and 
appliances,  valuable  only  for  use,  worth  a few  thousand 
dollars,  a mere  bagatelle  in  comparison  with  the  wealth 
of  the  State,  built  up  under  the  sanction  of  the  law,  owned 
by  citizens  whose  convictions  were  different  from  those 
of  the  majority,  and  who  believed  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  beer  to  be  right  and  wise.  As  good  citizens,  it  was 
fitting  that  they  should  yield  to  the  judgment  of  the  ma- 
jority. As  honest  men  it  was  fitting  for  the  majority  not 
to  destroy  without  compensation.” 

Still  unpersuaded  by  the  voice  of  the  highest  tribunal 
in  the  land.  Judge  Brewer  went  on  to  affirm  that  “when  a 
lawful  use  is  by  statute  made  unlawful  and  forbidden  and 
its  value  destroyed,  the  public  shall  make  compensation 
to  the  individual.”  And,  finally  he  re-affirmed  his  position 
in  this  boldest  declaration  of  all : — 

“We  must  recast  some  of  our  judicial  decisions ; and 
if  that  be  not  possible,  we  must  rewrite  into  our  Consti- 
tution the  affirmations  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
in  language  so  clear  and  peremptory  that  no  judge  can 
doubt  or  hesitate,  and  no  man,  not  even  a legislator,  mis- 
understand. I emphasize  the  words  clear  and  peremptory, 
for  many  of  those  who  wrought  into  the  Constitution  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  believed  that  they  were  placing 
therein  a National  guarantee  against  future  State  inva- 
sion of  private  rights,  but  judicial  decisions  have  shorn  it 
of  strength,  and  left  it  nothing  but  a figure  of  speech.” 


QUESTION  OF  COMPENSATION. 


31 


BRITISH  VIEW  OF  COMPENSATION. 

The  difference  between  the  American  and  British  atti- 
tude toward  this  question  of  compensating  persons  engaged 
in  the  liquor  traffic,  in  the  event  of  the  legal  extinction 
of  their  business,  is  marked  and  extraordinary.  We  are 
often  accused  of  playing  the  “sedulous  ape”  to  the  English- 
man in  matters  of  fashion,  etc.,  and  it  seems  that  we 
might  profitably  take  an  occasional  lesson  from  him  in  the 
province  of  government.  Certainly  the  British  position 
on  this  question  of  compensation  is  in  accord  with  simple 
justice,  and  reflects  credit  on  the  national  sense  of  honor 
and  equity. 

Look  at  the  contrast.  In  this  country  immense  prop- 
erty interests  are  wiped  out  by  prohibitory  laws  and  not  a 
dollar  allowed  for  compensation,  the  highest  court  in  the 
land  having  affirmed  the  legality  and  justice  of  such  virtual 
confiscation.  In  England,  on  the  contrary,  public  senti- 
ment favors  the  principle  of  compensation — the  measure 
of  such  compensation  was  about  the  only  question  at  issue 
regarding  the  Licensing  Bill  lately  'rejected  by  the  Lords, 
both  parties  being  agreed  as  to  the  principle  of  indemnifica- 
tion. 

When  the  bill  was  introduced  in  February  last  (1908), 
Qiancellor  Asquith  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  li- 
censes were  extinguished  without  compensation  in  the 
United  States  and  in  some  of  the  British  Colonies,  and 
that  legally  such  an  enactment  would  not  be  wrong.  But 
he  added,  “We  think,  and  rightly  in  my  opinion,  that  not 
only  policy  but  equity  demands  a fair  recognition  of  the 
expectations  upon  which  this  industry  has  so  long  been 
conducted.” 

It  may  be  needful  to  point  out  that  nothing  like  the 
American  idea  or  system  of  prohibition  prevails  in  Eng- 
land. The  bill  rejected  by  the  Lords  simply  gave  to  each 


32 


PROHIBITION. 


community  the  right  to  say  that  there  should  be  no  increase 
in  the  number  of  licenses  and  it  provided  for  a gradual 
reduction  of  the  number  of  public  houses,  allowing  a cer- 
tain compensation  to  the  holders  of  extinguished  licenses. 

Moderate  as  this  proposal  was,  being  strictly  in  the 
line  of  regulation,  it  failed  to  find  favor  with  the  English 
people  whose  reverence  for  property  and  vested  rights 
has  often  figured  in  the  making  of  history.  It  is  conceded 
that  the  Peers  would  not  have  dared  to  reject  the  bill 
had  they  not  felt  that  the  overwhelming  mass  of  public 
sentiment  was  behind  them. 

But  what  would  the  British  public  think  of  such  whole- 
sale measures  of  spoliation  and  confiscation  as  are  calmly 
proposed  and  as  calmly  executed  in  our  liberty-loving 
country?  For  in  England  the  liquor  business  is  not  re- 
garded as  outlawed,  nor  as  the  legitimate  prey  of  venal 
agitators,  and  no  such  decision  as  that  of  our  Supreme 
Court  mentioned  above,  has  ever  emanated  from  the  Wool- 
sack. English  Peers  are  heavily  interested  in  brewing,  as 
well  as  many  clergymen  of  the  Established  Church,  and 
nobody  has  to  apologize  for  his  connection  with  a trade 
which  is  recognized  as  a great  source  of  the  national 
wealth. 


BRITISH  STATESMEN  ON  COMPENSATION. 

We  append  the  views  of  some  eminent  British  authori- 
ties on  the  question  of  compensation ; 

Mr.  Gladstone: 

(Dalkeith,  November  26,  1879.) 

“But  I must  also  add  that  I think,  if  it  be  necessary, 
if  Parliament  should  think  it  wise  to  introduce  any  radical 
change  in  the  working  of  the  liquor  law  in  such  a way 
as  to  break  down  the  fair  expectations  of  persons  who  have 


QUESTION  OF  COMPENSATION. 


33 


grown  up,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  it  is  not  their 
fault — it  is  our  fault — under  the  shadows  of  those  laws, 
their  fair  claim  to  compensation  ought,  if  they  can  make 
good  their  case,  to  he  considered,  as  all  such  claims  have 
been  considered,  by  the  wisdom  and  liberality  of  a British 
Parliament.” 

(In  House  of  Commons,  March  5,  1880.) 

“As  to  compensation,  the  Licensed  Victuallers  ought 
to  be  dealt  with  exactly  on  the  same  principle  as  every 
other  class  in  regard  to  which  a vested  interest  has  been 
permitted  to  grow  up” 

(In  House  of  Commons,  June  18,  1880.) 

“I  should  have  been  better  pleased  with  the  matter 
of  the  resolution  if  my  honorable  friend  had  included  in 
it  some  reference  to  the  principle  of  equitable  compensa- 
tion. I want  nothing  more  than  this — a frank  recognition 
of  the  principle  that  we  are  not  to  deny  to  publicans,  as  a 
class,  perfectly  equal  treatment.” 

Lord  Selborne  (Late  Lord  Chancellor) : 

(Letter  to  Mr.  Ellaby,  June  10,  1890.) 

“If  I rightly  understand  the  views  and  objects  of  those 
who  in  the  name  of  temperance  object  to  any  payment 
being  made  for  the  purpose  of  such  agreements  as  this 
bill  would  authorize,  what  they  want  is  to  take  away 
from  a large  number  of  persons  who  have  lawfully  in- 
vested money  in  licensed  public-houses,  and  against  whom 
no  case  of  misconduct,  which  might  be  a just  cause  for 
refusing  to  renew  the  license,  can  be  alleged,  their  prop- 
erty and  means  of  livelihood,  and  to  do  this  without  com- 
pehsation.  This,  in  my  opinion,  would  be  very  unjust.” 


34 


PROHIBITION. 


Mr.  John  Bright: 

(House  of  Commons,  June  14,  1881.) 

“I  think  the  honorable  baronet  should  further  con- 
sider the  question  of  compensation,  and  not  think  it  abso- 
lutely wrong  if  Parliament,  under  those  circumstances,  did 
provide  some  mode  by  which  men  who  are  engaged  in  a 
lawful  business  should  not  be  deprived  of  their  business 
without  some  sort  of  compensation.” 

Mr.  John  Morley: 

(Letter  to  Mr.  D.  Gupwell,  February  10,  1880.) 

“I  should  strongly  oppose  any  legislation  which  should 
overlook  the  fact  that  immense  capital  has  been  embarked 
in  your  trade,  in  the  ordinary  expectation  that  the  trade 
would  not  be  interfered  with.” 

Mr.  Chamberlain: 

(House  of  Commons,  April  12,  1888.) 

“I  do  not  see  any  way  to  dispute  the  equitable  claim 
to  compensation  which  the  publicans  have.  The  publicans 
hold  a property  which  has  a marketable  value,  and  in 
which  they  have  invested  a considerable  sum.  They  are, 
at  all  events,  conducting  a legal  traffic  over  which  the  Leg- 
islature has,  to  a certain  extent,  thrown  its  shield  and 
protection,  and  they  can  not  be  fairly  and  properly  deprived 
of  their  means  of  livelihood  w-ithout  giving  them  compen- 
sation. All  precedent  would  be  against  our  adopting  such 
a course.  * * * 

Lord  Chief  Justice  Coleridge: 

(At  the  annual  Meeting  of  the  Church  of  England  Tem- 
perance Society,  April,  1888.) 

“If  they  (the  Temperance  Party)  desired  to  gradually 
diminish  the  number  of  Houses,  nothing  would  help  them 


QUESTION  OF  COMPENSATION. 


35 


more  than  proceeding  on  the  lines  of  equity  and  justice, 
and  nothing  would  defeat  their  ends  more  than  taking  the 
opposite  course.  Whatever  might  be  the  extent  of  the 
legal  rights  of  publicans,  they  had  no  right  to  ruin  them 
because  the  mind  of  England  had  changed  on  the  drink 
question.” 

Sir  Wilfred  Lawson: 

(House  of  Commons,  June  i8,  1880.) 

“Honorable  members  tell  me  that  there  ought  to  be 
something  about  compensation  in  my  resolution.  If  I 
would  only  do  that  they  could  find  it  in  their  hearts  to 
vote  for  me.  Now,  I do  not  zvant  to  condemn  compensa- 
tion. * * * I am  quite  sure,  if  ever  my  resolution  is  crystal- 
lized into  an  Act  of  Parliament,  this  House  will  never 
refuse  a fair  demand  from  any  body  of  men.” 

Mr.  Arthur  Arnold: 

(House  of  Commons,  June  18,  1880.) 

“Now,  I can  only  say  for  myself  that  I regard  a license 
possessed  by  the  man  who  has  the  privilege  of  holding 
that  license  for  the  sale  of  wine  and  spirits  as  a very  sub- 
stantial property,  and  I will  tell  the  House  why — because 
there  is  in  regard  to  that  license  every  feature  of  property.” 

Hon.  Arthur  Balfour  (Speaking  as  Prime  Minister, 
1903) : 

“Surely  it  must  stand  to  reason  that  if  you  make  prop- 
erty in  licenses  absolutely  insecure  no  man  of  position  or 
substance  zvill  engage  in  the  trade  * * * L therefore,  look 
with  the  utmost  alarm  to  anything  which  would  absolutely 
drive  out  all  the  good  men  and  leave  the  work  which  has 
to  be  done,  and  will  be  done  by  somebody,  legislate  how 
you  will,  to  men  who  have  neither  character,  nor  money, 
nor  position  to  lose.” 


Wm.  H.  Taft  on  ProkiLition 


Hon.  Wm.  H.  Taft  in  his  work,  “Four  Aspects  of 
Civic  Duty,”  says : 

“Nothing  is  more  foolish,  nothing  more  utterly  at  vari- 
ance with  sound  policy  than  to  enact  a law  w'hich,  by 
reason  of  conditions  surrounding  the  community  is  incapa- 
ble of  enforcement.  Such  instances  are  sometimes  presented 
by  sumptuary  laws,  by  which  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors 
is  prohibited  under  penalties  in  localties,  wdiere  the  public 
sentiment  of  the  immediate  community  does  not  and  wdll 
not  sustain  the  enforcement  of  the  law^  In  such  cases 
the  legislation  usually  is  the  result  of  agitation  by  the 
people  in  the  country  districts,  who  are  determined  to  make 
their  fellow  citizens  in  the  city  better.  The  enactment  of 
the  law  comes  through  the  country  representatives  who 
form  a majority  of  the  Legislature,  but  the  enforcement 
of  the  law  is  among  the  people  who  are  generally  opposed 
to  its  enactment,  and  under  such  circumstances  the  law'^  is 
a dead  letter.  In  cases  where  the  sale  of  liquor  can  not 
be  prohibited  in  fact,  it  is  far  better  to  regulate  than  to 
attempt  to  stamp  it  out. 

“By  the  enactment  of  a drastic  law  and  the  failure  to 
enforce  it,  there  is  injected  into  the  public  mind  the  idea 
that  laws  are  to  be  observed  or  violated  according  to  the 
will  of  those  affected.  I need  not  say  how  altogether 
pernicious  such  a loose  theory  is.  * * * The  constant 

violation  or  neglect  of  any  law  leads  to  a demoralized  view 
of  all  laws.” 


36 


Tke  Crime  of  Confiscation 

BY  JOSEPH  DEBAR. 

\ 


The  men  engaged  in  distilling,  brewing  and  wine  mak- 
ing and  in  dealing  in  such  products,  are  surely  entitled  to 
consideration  when  they  venture  to  analyze  the  ever  en- 
croaching menace  to  their  invested  millions  which  looms 
before  them  in  the  specter  of  confiscatory  prohibition. 

It  is  here  sought  to  review  this  great  question,  not  from 
the  standpoint  of  legal  technicalities,  but  from  the  broader 
and  better  one  of  long  usage,  common  sense  and  govern- 
mental justice,  and  in  belief  that  law  and  justice  are,  and 
should  ever  be,  one  and  the  same  thing. 

It  is  not  essential  to  ascertain  the  precise  date  at  which 
liquors  were  first  produced  and  used  in  this  country.  That 
they  were  imported  and  used  long  before  they  were  pro- 
duced here,  goes  without  saying. 

Wines  and  brandy  made  abroad  came  with  the  first 
colonists,  and  rum  distilled  in  the  West  Indies  is  frequently 
mentioned  among  the  earliest  of  our  imports. 

Prior  to  and  during  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  im- 
ported liquors  of  many  kinds  were  in  common  use  among 
the  people. 

Following  the  war,  which  resulted  in  the  freedom  of 
the  colonies,  the  condition  of  the  finances  of  the  new 
Republic  made  necessary  the  building  up  of  a fiscal  system 
and  the  raising  of  revenue  from  many  sources.  In  this  con- 

37 


38 


PROHIBITION. 


nection  a short  history  of  these  early  enactments  as  affect- 
ing liquor  may  be  of  interest,  not  alone  from  the  outlook 
of  governmental  recognition  of  the  traffic,  the  demonstra- 
tion of  which  is  the  main  object  of  this  article,  but  because 
the  manner  in  which  such  taxation  was  received  by  some, 
and  more  particularly  by  one  of  the  States,  throws  a strong 
sidelight  on  the  mental  bias  of  those  days  towards  both 
liquor  and  taxation. 

In  the  fiscal  year  of  1791  the  first  revenue  producing 
measure  passed  in  Congress  went  into  effect.  Originally 
it  related  entirely  to  imports  and  to  the  tonnage  of  vessels. 
This  first  tariff  measure  was  the  second  act  passed  by  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  its  preamble  recited 
that  its  purpose  was  to  raise  revenue  and  also  “for  the 
encouragement  and  protection  of  manufacturers.”  This  bill 
was  signed  on  July  4,  1789,  in  Philadelphia,  where  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  then  sat. 

The  earliest  statistics  to  be  found  show  that  these  cus- 
toms revenue  laws  produced  in  1794,  $4,399,473.09,  but 
these  laws,  even  with  subsequent  amendments,  did  not  pro- 
duce revenues  sufficient  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  young 
republic,  and  to  place  the  Government  in  a position  to  sus- 
tain its  credit  by  caring  for  the  debt  assumed  by  it  from 
the  several  States.  Hence,  a measure  was  adopted  on 
March  3,  1791,  amending  the  original  tariff  act,  and  this 
new  measure,  while  re-enacting  the  former  import  duties, 
levied  a tax  upon  distilled  spirits  produced  in  this  country. 
That  was  the  beginning  of  the  internal  revenue  taxation 
of  distilled  spirits.  This  law  is  said  to  have  been  prepared 
by  Alexander  Hamilton,  then  Secretary  of  the  Treasur)\ 
At  all  events,  it  is  known  that  he  urged  the  passage  of 
the  bill  and  subsequently  outlined  other  measures  of  the 
same  kind  in  furtherance  of  his  carefully  devised  financial 
plan,  so  that,  in  fact,  Alexander  Hamilton  was  the  originator 
of  the  internal  revenue  system  of  taxation,  as  well  as  the 


CRIME  OF  CONFISCATION. 


39 


champion  of  the  tariff  system  upon  the  theory  expressed 
in  the  preamble  to  the  first  tariff  law,  that  it  is  for  the 
“encouragement  and  protection”  of  manufacturers  in  this 
country. 

Imported  distilled  spirits  were  made  dutiable  by  this 
first  tariff  law,  the  tax  schedule  being  based  on  six  classi- 
fications, each  class  embracing  spirits  with  a certain  per- 
centage of  alcoholic  contents. 

The  internal  or  excise  tax  on  spirits  followed  the  same 
proof  classification,  but  there  were  two  rates  established, 
the  first  and  higher  rate  being  on  spirits  distilled  in  this 
country  from  sugar,  molasses  or  other  imported  materials, 
the  second  and  lower  rate  on  spirits  distilled  in  this  country 
from  articles  “of  the  growth  or  product  of  the  United 
States.” 

But  while  this  internal  revenue  law  was  passed  by  the 
first  Congress  at  its  third  session  in  1791,  a very  similar 
bill  had  been  defeated  at  the  previous  session  in  1790,  after 
a bitter  fight,  by  a narrow  margin,  the  defeat  of  the  bill 
being  attributed  largely  to  the  influence  of  the  Senators 
and  Representatives  in  Congress  from  Pennsylvania,  where 
the  distilling  business  had  begun  to  assume  large  propor- 
tions, and  where  considerable  alarm  was  manifested  be- 
cause of  the  attempt,  as  then  alleged,  to  reduce  the  distillers’ 
profits  or  drive  them  out  of  business.  At  that  time  the 
anti-administration  or  anti-Federalist  strength  massed  itself 
against  all  internal  revenue  legislation ; and,  in  fact,  it  was 
principally  upon  financial  legislation  in  general  that  party 
lines  were  drawn. 

While  this  act  of  March  3,  1791,  was  a general  revenue 
measure  embracing  both  impost  and  excise  taxes,  yet  the 
greater  part  of  its  sixty-two  sections  were  devoted  to  the 
establishment  of  an  internal  revenue  system  quite  as  com- 
plete in  detail  for  the  work  then  to  be  accomplished  as 
is  the  present  law  for  the  situations  and  conditions  now 


40 


PROHIBITION. 


to  be  dealt  with.  Many  features  were  the  same  that  we 
find  incorporated  in  the  existing  law. 

On  the  same  date,  that  is,  June  5,  1794,  a law  was 
passed  which  required  entry  and  notice  for  the  rectifica- 
tion of  low  wines  and  other  distilled  spirits,  that  being  the 
parent  law  in  this  country  touching  rectification. 

At  that  time  the  opposition  to  the  enactment  of  these 
various  laws  which  had  appeared  in  Congress  was  fol- 
lowed by  opposition  to  their  enforcement.  The  first  serious 
resistance  to  Federal  authority  resulted,  in  part  at  least, 
from  the  enforcement  of  the  law  imposing  the  tax  upon 
the  distillation  of  spirits  in  this  country.  It  occurred  in 
1794,  in  Western  Pennsylvania.  Throughout  that  section, 
especially  in  the  counties  of  Allegheny,  Beaver,  Fayette, 
Washington  and  Westmoreland,  and  in  the  towns  for  quite 
a distance  up  the  Allegheny  and  Monongahela  rivers,  dis- 
tilling had  grown  to  be  an  important  line  of  business,  and 
whisky  was  current  coin  of  the  realm  throughout  that 
region  and  the  country  tributary  thereto. 

The  dissatisfaction  which  existed  grew  steadily  until 
the  flames  of  a little  rebellion  broke  out,  and  there  was 
avowed  insurrection;  military  companies  were  formed,  and 
men  drilled  for  weeks  and  affairs  took  on  a serious  aspect. 

President  Washington  issued  two  proclamations  to  the 
insurrectionists,  calling  upon  them  to  disperse  and  yield 
obedience  to  the  laws,  but  the  distillers  and  their  sjnn- 
pathizers  felt  that  their  rights  had  been  invaded,  they  re- 
fused to  pay  the  tax,  and  forcibly  resisted  collection. 

No  heed  was  given  to  the  President’s  proclamation 
until  he  threatened  to  dispatch  to  the  scene  of  the  trouble 
a considerable  force  of  seasoned  soldiers  of  the  Revolution, 
under  the  command  of  General  Harry  Lee,  “Light  Horse 
Harry  Lee”  of  Revolutionary  fame.  This  threat  of  force 
had  the  desired  effect,  and  the  rioters,  evidently  believing 


CRIME  OF  CONFISCATION. 


41 


discretion  the  better  part,  dispersed.  This  ended  the 
outbreak. 

This  incident  has  passed  into  history  as  the  “Whisky 
Rebellion  of  Pennsylvania.”  It  was  the  crude  and  turbu- 
lent frontier  manifestation  of  intense  opposition  to  what 
the  people  of  Pennsylvania  deemed  an  unjust  tax,  and  the 
movement  had  the  sympathy  of  several  other  States. 

It  is  significant  that  the  national  Government  dealt  with 
extreme  leniency  toward  the  malcontents.  The  agitation 
lasted  nearly  three  years  before  force  was  threatened  to 
suppress  it.  The  national  Government  realized  that  the  uni- 
versal sentiment  was  in  favor  of  liquor  and  tax  exempt 
liquor  at  that,  untrammeled  by  excise  or  excisemen. 

The  people  and  the  State  and  national  Governments 
were  a unit  in  favoring  the  “protection  and  encouragement 
of  manufacturers”  in  the  product  of  the  still,  and  divided 
only  as  to  whether  such  product  should  be  classed  among 
the  sources  of  the  government’s  income.  And  it  is  signi- 
ficant that  the  government  favored  and  encouraged,  by 
lower  rates,  the  distillation  of  spirits  from  “articles  of  the 
growth  and  product  of  the  United  States”  in  preference 
to  the  distillation  of  spirits  made  from  imported  raw 
material. 

The  distilling  industry  of  our  country  presents  no  ab- 
normal features  of  development.  It  expanded  naturally 
in  unison  with  the  general  growth  of  our  population  and 
of  our  home  industries. 

With  the  great  influx  of  German  immigration  which 
has  done  so  much  to  people  our  land  with  a splendid  ele- 
ment of  loyal,  conservative,  industrious  and  self-respecting 
citizens,  it  was  but  natural  that  the  brewing  industry  should 
thrive  apace. 

These  immigrants  brought  with  them  the  tastes  and  so- 
cial instincts  of  the  Fatherland  and  their  presence  here,  in 


42 


PROHIBITION. 


ever  increasing  numbers,  created  a demand  for  the  lighter 
beverages  of  the  old  world. 

The  German  is  a beer  and  wine  drinker  in  moderation, 
and  his  habits  of  temperate  enjoyment  without  excess  have 
had  a distinctly  beneficial  influence  upon  our  native  popula- 
tion in  the  rational  use  of  stimulants. 

It  is  not  surprising,  then,  that  between  the  war  of  the 
Revolution  and  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War  in  i86i, 
the  making  and  selling  of  liquor,  malt,  vinous  and  spirit- 
uous, had  become  a recognized  industry  of  vast  proportions. 

The  character  of  this  industry  underwent  some  changes 
incident  to  an  expanding  and  varying  population.  Under 
the  Teutonic  infusion  of  blood  and  habits,  the  movement 
was  from  the  stronger  to  the  milder  beverages.  Later  the 
wine  output  of  the  Great  Lake  region  and  of  the  Pacific 
slope  supplied  an  increasing  demand  for  table  wines  of 
wholesome  character  and  mild  alcoholic’  strength. 

In  all  of  these  changes  extending  through  a century 
of  national  life  the  national  Government  has  maintained 
the  same  fostering  and  encouraging  supervision  of  the  triple 
industries,  and  when  under  the  tremendous  exigencies  of 
our  civil  strife  it  once  more  became  necessary  to  levy 
internal  revenue  taxes  for  the  needs  of  the  Government, 
it  levied  those  taxes  with  the  same  careful  regard  for  “en- 
couragement to  manufacturers”  shown  in  the  early  excise 
measures  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  Washington’s  great 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  the  father  of  the  tariff  and 
internal  excise  system  of  our  country. 

Every  enactment  of  the  Congress  in  regard  to  all  forms 
of  liquor  clearly  indicates  that  the  industries  taxed  were 
encouraged  to  endure  and  were  expected  to  produce  revenue. 
Every  national  budget  has  contemplated  the  consumption 
and  continued  use  of  these  internalty  taxed  products  and 
every  revenue  measure  has  always  been  accompanied  by 


CRIME  OF  CONFISCATION. 


43 


figures  setting  forth  in  advance  the  estimate  of  national 
income  expected  to  be  derived  from  these  sources. 

These  facts  are  pointed  out  as  affording  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  relation  of  the  national  Government  to 
the  traffic.  A relation  of  encouragement  and  protection 
suggesting  orderly  continuity  in  every  phase.  A marked 
instance  of  this  element  of  continuity  is  shown  in  the  exten- 
sion of  the  bonded  periods  during  which  distilled  liquors 
could  be  aged  in  bond.  All  of  the  changes  and  modifica- 
tions have  been  in  the  direction  of  increased  convenience  and 
facilities  and  “encouragement  and  protection”  to  the  manu- 
facturer. Beginning  with  a bonded  period  of  one  year,  this 
term  has  been  extended  to  eight  years,  and  with  a liberal 
outage  allowance  for  seven  years  of  the  bonded  period. 

The  rectifying  and  blending  branch  of  the  spirits  trade 
has  been  accorded  facilities  for  manufacturing  in  bond  for 
export,  and  in  many  ways  has  had  special  regulation  ex- 
tended to  it  suggesting  continuity,  “encouragement  and 
protection.” 

It  has  long  been  a subject  of  comment  by  the  less 
favored  of  the  three  industries  that  the  brewing  interest 
was  in  a special  manner  the  pet  child  of  the  national  Gov- 
ernment. This  accusation  has  been  strongly  justified  from 
every  aspect  of  national  legislation.  Beer  has  always  been 
taxed  lightly,  even  at  a lower  figure  than  demanded  by  its 
alcoholic  content.  And  the  regulations  for  the  handling 
of  the  trade — bottling,  affixing  stamps,  reporting  process 
of  manufacture — have  all  been  of  the  mildest  and  easiest. 

This  special  branch  of  liquor  making  has  been  more 
than  fostered  and  encouraged ; it  may  fairly  be  said  to 
have  been  subsidized  in  the  leniencies  and  facilities  ac- 
corded it. 

Having  considered  the  position  of  the  national  Govern- 
ment for  a century  and  more  of  time,  towards  the  liquor 


44 


PROHIBITION. 


industry,  let  us  take  a glance  at  the  attitude  assumed  to- 
wards it  by  the  various  States. 

In  this  connection  two  facts  stand  prominently  forth. 
A majority  of  the  States  recognized  and  legalized  the  in- 
dustry by  license  laws,  and  have  issued  articles  of  incorpora- 
tion to  companies  for  the  operation  of  breweries,  distilleries 
and  wholesale  liquor  establishments. 

Certainly  no  stronger  evidence  of  the  legal  existence 
and  State  recognition  of  any  business  can  be  shown  than 
articles  of  incorporation  granted  by  the  State  for  the  ex- 
plicit purpose  of  carrying  on  such  business. 

Here  in  the  United  States,  concurrent  with  the  growth 
and  expansion  of  the  liquor  industry  in  all  its  ramifications, 
there  appeared  at  various  periods,  as  in  England,  sporadic 
manifestations  of  zeal  for  temperance.  We  use  the  word 
“temperance”  in  this  connection  advisedly  as  differentiating 
from  latter-day  “prohibition.” 

The  temperance  movements  of  the  early  century  took 
the  form  of  appeals  to  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  men 
for  moderation  in  the  use  of  liquor  or  for  total  abstinence 
from  their  use  by  men  of  feeble  will  power.  These  move- 
ments were  usually  conducted  on  purely  moral  lines  and 
were  deserving  of  commendation.  Their  object  was  to 
help  the  weak  and  wayward  to  better  self-control  and  to 
lead  the  strong  and  reckless  to  moderation.  Men  addicted 
to  intemperance  were  urged  to  take  the  pledge,  but  at 
the  outset  the  pledge  referred  only  to  strong  liquor,  and 
not  to  some  of  the  milder  beverages.  Later  the  “tee-total” 
pledge  was  inaugurated  and  this  meant  a promise  to  refrain 
from  any  and  all  alcoholic  stimulants,  including  even  cider 
and  fruit  wines. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  these  early  appeals  for  tem- 
perance were  to  the  individual — not  to  the  lawmaking 
power. 

Later  there  arose  a faction  within  the  early  temperance 


CRIME  OF  CONFISCATION. 


45 


ranks,  which  clamored  for  legal  assistance  in  enforcing 
their  views.  Their  appeal  was  to  the  strong  arm  of  the 
law  for  aid  in  inculcating  a moral  precept. 

This  division  in  the  ranks  of  men  claiming  to  be  tem- 
perance workers  has  continued  to  exist  and  at  this  forking 
of  the  roads,  among  those  opposed  to  the  liquor  trafific,  a 
review  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  temperance  and  pro- 
hibition movements  may  not  be  amiss. 

In  a volume  of  popular  descriptive  portraiture  of  great 
and  memorable  events  entitled  “Our  First  Century,”  by 
R.  M.  Devens  (C.  A.  Nichols  & Co.,  publishers.  Spring- 
field,  Mass.,  1880),  there  is  an  interesting  chapter  devoted 
to  an  outline  of  what  the  author  terms  “Breaking  out  of 
the  Temperance  Reformation.” 

He  ascribes  to  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush,  of  Philadelphia, 
the  first  writings  of  weight  on  this  subject.  That  scientist’s 
work,  “An  Inquiry  into  the  Effects  of  Ardent  Spirits  upon 
the  Human  Body  and  Mind,”  issued  as  early  as  1804,  is 
said  to  have  aroused  much  interest. 

In  1808  there  was  the  first  movement  of  an  associated 
character  for  the  voluntary  abandonment  of  drink  by  the 
individual.  The  initial  association  was  entitled  “The  Tem- 
perate Society  of  Moreau  and  Northumberland”  (towns 
in  the  county  of  Saratoga,  N.  Y.),  originated  by  Billy 
Clarke,  and  was  based  upon  regulations  like  the  following: 

“No  member  shall  be  intoxicated,  under  penalty  of  fifty 
cents.  No  member  shall  drink  rum,  gin,  whisky,  wine,  or 
any  distilled  spirits,  or  compositions  of  the  same,  or  any 
of  them,  except  by  the  advice  of  a physician,  or  in  case 
of  actual  disease  (also  excepting  wine  at  public  dinners), 
under  penalty  of  twenty-five  cents ; provided  that  this 
article  shall  not  infringe  on  any  religious  ordinance.  No 
member  shall  offer  any  of  said  liquors  to  any  other  member, 
or  urge  any  other  person  to  drink  thereof,  under  penalty 
of  twenty-five  cents  for  each  offense.” 


46 


PROHIBITION. 


In  1813,  there  was  formed  the  Massachusetts  Society 
for  the  Suppression  of  Intemperance;  one  in  Connecticut 
in  1829;  and,  in  1826,  the  American  Temperance  Union. 

At  the  beginning  of  1828,  the  custom,  hitherto  so  gen- 
eral, of  treating  visitors  with  wine,  cordials,  and  brandy, 
began  to  disappear.  The  sideboards  of  the  rich  and  in- 
fluential, which  from  time  immemorial  had  groaned  under 
a load  of  decanters,  were  relieved  of  their  burdens,  and  a 
very  great  change  in  the  customs  of  society  began  to  be 
apparent.  At  the  close  of  1828,  the  number  of  temperance 
societies  reported  in  the  temperance  journals  was  225.  At 
the  close  of  1829  there  were  more  than  1,000  such  societies, 
embracing  more  than  100,000  members,  pledged  to  total 
abstinence;  50  distilleries  had  stopped,  400  merchants  had 
abandoned  the  traffic,  and  1,200  drunkards  had  been  re- 
claimed. On  the  first  of  May,  1831,  it  appeared  that  more 
than  300,000  persons  had  signed  the  pledge,  and  “not  less 
than  50,000  were  supposed  to  have  been  saved  from  a 
drunkard’s  grave.  Even  at  Washington,  a congressional 
temperance  society  was  organized,  under  the  auspices  of 
such  men  as  Cass,  Grundy,  Bates,  Wayne,  Post,  Durbin  and 
others ; and  some  of  the  most  brilliant  public  men  signed 
the  pledge.” 

One  of  the  most  energetic  and  widespread  temperance 
organizations  in  the  country  w'as  the  Washington  Temper- 
ance Society,  founded  in  Baltimore,  Md.,  in  the  month  of 
April,  1840.  It  had  its  origin  in  the  spontaneous  action 
of  six  individuals  of  convivial  habits  who  were  in  the  habit 
of  meeting  at  Chase’s  tavern  in  Liberty  street,  Baltimore. 
As  much  in  a spirit  of  badinage  as  from  any  other  motive 
they  agreed  one  evening  to  start  a temperance  society.  It 
seems  there  was  some  debate  at  the  outset  as  to  the  title 
best  suited  to  their  wants.  Some  suggested  the  name  of 
Jefferson,  others  of  Washington.  As  both  Jefferson  and 
Washington  had  a keen  appreciation  of  the  good  things 


CRIME  OF  CONFISCATION. 


47 


of  life,  there  seemed  no  particular  reason  why  either  name 
should  have  been  taken,  but  they  finally  decided  on  the 
name  of  “Washington  Temperance  Society,”  and  later 
came  to  be  known  as  “Washingtonians.” 

The  author,  in  commenting  upon  this  stage  of  the  pro- 
ceeding, remarks,  “It  is  a little  singular,  how'ever,  that 
this  name  should  have  been  chosen,  for,  though  Washing- 
ton was  one  of  the  brightest  examples  of  temperate  eating 
and  drinking,  he  habitually  used  liquor  or  wine  himself, 
and  provided  it  for  his  guests  and  laborers.” 

This  Washingtonian  Society  was  very  popular  and  spread 
rapidly,  and  was  the  means  of  developing  such  famous 
orators  as  John  B.  Gough,  John  H.  W.  Hawkins  and  others 
of  like  capacity  for  appealing  to  the  emotionalism  of  the 
people  of  day. 

The  same  author  tells  us  that  in  1849,  Father  Mathew, 
the  world-renowned  “Apostle  of  Temperance”  of  Ireland, 
came  to  this  country.  His  arrival  in  New  York  was  in 
the  nature  of  an  ovation ; the  civic  authorities  according 
him  the  honor  of  a public  reception.  He  was  entertained 
at  dinner  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  while  on 
a visit  to  Washington,  and  received  other  marks  of  esteem 
from  many  high  officials  of  the  Government.  In  Phila- 
delphia he  was  welcomed  in  Independence  Hall,  and  at 
Boston  in  Faneuil  Hall.” 

It  must  impress  any  one  reading  this  sketch  by  Mr. 
Devens,  that  times  have  changed  indeed  when  the  original 
moral  suasion  idea  has  been  so  completely  and  ruthlessly 
brushed  aside  and  supplanted  by  appeal  to  the  strong  arm 
of  the  law,  and  to  methods  of  violence,  destruction  and 
confiscation. 

The  pledge  given  by  Father  Mathew  has  in  it  the  ring 
of  the  true  apostle  of  temperance.  Mr.  Devens  tells  us 
that  his  method  of  administering  the  pledge  was  some- 
what novel,  though  at  the  same  time  quite  affecting.  The 


48 


PROHIBITION. 


converts  knelt  in  a semi-circle  around  him,  and  repeated 
the  following  words ; 

“I  promise,  with  divine  assistance,  to  abstain  from  all 
intoxicating  liquors,  cordials,  cider  and  fruit  liquors,  and 
to  prevent,  as  much  as  possible,  intemperance  in  others,  by 
advice  and  example.” 

To  this  Father  Mathews’  response  was,  “May  God  bless 
you,  my  children.  May  He  give  you  grace  and  strength 
to  keep  the  pledge.” 

Later  in  this  century  Father  Mathew  was  followed  by 
another  true  temperance  worker  of  great  sincerity  and  ear- 
nestness. Francis  Murphy,  a North-Irish  Protestant,  gave 
his  life  to  the  cause,  and  died  recently  at  an  advanced  age 
in  California.  Francis  Murphy  appealed  to  the  souls  of 
men  and  not  to  the  forces  of  ruin  and  confiscation,  and 
next  to  Father  Mathew,  accomplished  the  greatest  amount 
of  good  in  the  cause  of  true  temperance  reform.  What 
Francis  Murphy  thought  of  prohibition  is  here  given  in 
his  own  words:  “The  prohibition  policy  amounts  to  Caesar- 
ism.  They  believe  in  going  ahead,  right  or  wrong.  In  the 
States  where  laws  have  been  passed  prohibiting  the  sale  of 
liquor,  the  entire  State  nearly  has  been  legislated  into  crime, 
for  if  it  is  a crime  to  sell  liquor,  it  is  a crime  to  buy  it, 
and  the  majority  has  done  one  or  the  other.  So  unpopular 
have  such  laws  become  that  the  method  of  enforcing  them 
has  become  more  injurious  than  the  original  evil,  and  the 
officers  whose  business  it  is  to  enforce  them  have  lost  the 
sympathy  of  the  common  people.” 

In  contrast  to  the  commendable  temperance  efforts  of 
these  two  big-hearted  and  earnest  men,  preaching  the  doc- 
trines of  moderation  and  abstinence,  there  lowers  upon  us 
the  sinister  figure  of  Neal  Dow,  of  Maine,  the  exponent  of 
Mediaevalism,  and  the  author  of  the  “Maine  Law,”  the 
embodiment  of  the  stake,  the  faggot,  and  the  torture-wheel 
spirit  of  bygone  ages. 


CRIME  OF  CONFISCATION. 


49 


From  his  time  forward  the  moral  suasion  idea  lost 
ground.  The  anti-saloon  cohort  of  to-day  knows  no  law  of 
God  nor  man  that  it  feels  obliged  to  obey;  in  sooth  it  is 
the  law  for  itself  and  for  all  who  dwell  upon  earth,  and  it 
hails  itself  as  the  source  and  divinely  constituted  repository 
of  all  righteousness. 

That  an  organization  of  this  nature,  self-ordained,  in- 
spired by  fanaticism  and  financed  by  the  corruption  of 
predatory  plunder,  is  a menace  to  any  land  and  any  form 
of  government,  must  be  evident  to  all  men  who  think. 

Small  wonder  that  this  force  of  evil  should  have  wound 
itself  into  political  prestige  by  the  insidious  methods  of  in- 
direction. It  began  its  machinations  in  the  school  rooms 
of  our  country  by  poisoning  the  child-mind  against  any- 
thing and  everything  that  stood  in  the  way  of  its  accession 
to  power.  It  has  crept  into  our  courts  and  polluted  our 
judiciary.  It  has  degraded  and  subsidized  and  terrorized 
the  Legislatures  of  our  States.  It  has  spread  its  mephitic 
influences  over  municipalities,  great  and  small.  In  short, 
it  has  resorted  to  everything  and  stopped  at  nothing  to 
gain  its  ends,  and  all  this  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

The  chasm  between  the  first  methods  of  appeal  to  con- 
science by  men  who  headed  the  true  temperance  move- 
ments of  the  early  century  and  the  howling  mob  of  psalm- 
singing plunderers  of  to-day,  is  as  wide  as  space  itself. 

And  in  the  face  of  this  menace,  the  danger  to  all  forms 
of  property  is  beginning  to  excite  general  and  widespread 
alarm. 

Having  shown  the  relations  of  the  national  Govern- 
ment and  of  the  States  towards  the  liquor  industries,  and 
having  glanced  at  tl^  forces  which  from  time  to  time  have 
arisen  in  opposition  to  those  industries,  we  nowhere  find 
justification  for  the  extreme  position  taken  by  our  prohibi- 
tion friends  that  the  liquor  industry  is  a thing  of  evil,  to 


50 


PROHIBITION. 


be  dealt  with  as  one  would  in  exterminating  piracy  or 
brigandage. 

Did  space  permit,  we  might  recount  the  adventures  and 
experiences  of  the  many  States  of  the  Union  which  have 
tested  prohibition,  only  to  repudiate  it  after  varying  in- 
tervals of  trial. 

Under  a temperance  movement  in  England,  wherein  it 
was  sought  to  reduce  the  number  of  public  houses  (saloons), 
a fourteen-year  plan  of  gradual  elimination  was  suggested, 
and  this  with  full  compensation  to  the  publicans,  not  alone 
for  the  value  of  their  appurtenances  and  stock  on  hand,  but 
also  for  their  leases.  But  in  England  this  was  objected  to 
as  too  radical,  and  a longer  term  demanded  on  the  plea  that 
even  Parliament  could  not  ignore  the  property  and  business 
rights  of  Englishmen ! 

Contrasted  with  this  conservatism  of  Anglo-Saxon  jus- 
tice and  protection  to  vested  property  rights,  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  our  outbreaks  of  unwashed  Hooliganism  in 
legislation  should  startle  our  British  brethren  into  with- 
drawing capital  from  any  and  all  United  States  investments. 

It  is  a hopeful  augury  of  the  future  to  note  that  the 
property  interests  of  our  country  are  slowly  awakening  to 
the  portent  of  the  prevailing  mobocracy  of  prohibition  and 
are  sounding  the  outcry  of  alarm. 

For  if  one  line  of  property  may  be  confiscated  under 
popular  clamor,  all  property  is  liable  to  a similar  fate. 

Many  of  our  prohibition  friends  are  already  threatening 
to  destroy  the  tobacco  industry  as  soon  as  they  have  fin- 
ished up  the  liquor  business. 

With  equal  reason  a crusade  might  be  inaugurated 
against  the  drug  business.  And  why  not  against  the  mil- 
linery or  jewelrv  business?  Neither  of  these  last  named 
articles  of  commerce  is  essential  to  human  welfare.  Even 
in  war  civilized  nations  are  becoming  slow  to  appropriate 


CRIME  OF  CONFISCATION. 


51 


or  destroy  the  possessions  of  the  enemy  without  ultimate 
compensation. 

The  question  now  before  the  American  people  is  one 
of  dangerous  significance.  If  the  present  mob-spirit  of 
destruction  is  permitted  to  run  wild  much  longer,  all  prop- 
erty is  menaced,  and  the  only  question  which  needs  be 
asked  is,  “Who  will  be  the  next  victim?  Upon  whom  will 
the  outbreak  next  precipitate  itself?” 

When  the  courts  of  a country  are  vitiated  and  no  longer 
command  the  confidence  of  the  people,  the  end  of  free  gov- 
ernment is  not  far  off.  If  the  inferior  courts  of  our  land 
have  fallen  under  the  baneful  influence  of  fanaticism,  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is  yet  a bulwark  of 
integrity  and  virtue.  It  is  freely  predicted  that  when  this 
great  question  is  finally  determined  by  this  august  tribunal 
of  eminent  and  honest  jurists,  that  vested  property  will  once 
more  find  that  protection  of  the  law  of  which  it  has  been 
so  long  and  so  ruthlessly  despoiled. 

It  is  difficult  for  anyone  not  directly  interested  in  any 
of  the  liquor  industries  to  realize  the  widespread  and  ruin- 
ous effects  of  the  present  confiscatory  program  of  prohibi- 
tion. 

The  Anti-Saloon  League  gloats  over  the  fact  that  in 
Ohio  alone  under  county  prohibition  over  twenty-four  hun- 
dred (2,400)  retail  dealers  in  liquor  have  been  wiped  out 
of  existence,  and  that  under  a provision  of  law  which  com- 
pels the  dealer  to  close  his  doors  in  thirty  days  from  the 
date  on  which  a county  votes  “dry,”  and  without  one  penny 
of  compensation  for  the  destruction  visited  upon  his  means 
of  livelihood  for  himself  and  family.  What  a contrast  to 
the  British  plan  of  fourteen  years  gradual  elimination  with 
full  compensation  for  stock,  fixtures  and  leases ! 

What  is  true  of  Ohio  is  true  of  other  States  under  county 
prohibition.  Under  State-wide  prohibition,  as  in  Tennessee 
and  Georgia,  the  destruction  is  greater  and  more  complete. 


52 


PROHIBITION. 


Millions  and  hundreds  of  millions  of  invested  capital  are 
thus  destroyed  directly;  but  what  of  the  indirect  losses? 

Banks,  money-lenders,  innocent  stockholders,  real  estate 
owners — all  share  in  the  destruction  of  values  and  credits, 
and  increased  taxes  are  heaped  on  everyone. 

And  this  is  proclaimed  by  the  fanatics  as  “God’s  work.” 
Truly  the  American  people  like  to  be  humbugged.  And  the 
apathy  shown  by  those  not  immediately  interested  is  one 
of  the  strangest  features  of  the  situation.  The  awakening 
and  the  reaction  is  slowly  coming.  The  marvel  is  that  the 
craze  and  its  overwhelming  injustice  should  have  continued 
so  long.  And  this  to  industries  which  for  a century  and 
more  of  national  life  have  been  accorded  by  the  Govern- 
ment every  encouragement  to  endure  and  expand,  and 
which  have  furnished  to  the  national  exchequer  at  all  times 
one  of  the  chief  items  of  national  revenue. 


Tke  Rev.  diaries  F.  Aked,  D.D., 
and  His  Divine  Master. 

A Contrast. 

BY  PERCY  ANDREAE. 


In  the  month  of  March,  1908,  there  appeared  in  Appic- 
ton’s  Magazine  an  article  by  the  Rev.  Charles  F.  Aked,  D.  D., 
entitled  “Christianity  and  Temperance.”  In  the  ordinary 
course  of  things  it  would  not  be  expected  that  such  a sub- 
ject, especially  when  treated  by  a minister  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  could  lend  itself  to  any  discussion  of  a controversial 
nature.  In  the  article  in  question,  however,  there  are  utter- 
ances of  so  extraordinary  a character,  not  only  impugning 
the  honesty  and  manhood  of  thousands  of  men  who  for  )'^ears 
have  been  obliged  to  submit  more  or  less  in  silence  to  sim- 
ilar attacks,  from  similar  quarters,  but  actually  exhorting 
the  church  of  Christ  to  deny  them  the  spiritual  privileges 
which  Almighty  God  has  vouchsafed  to  the  humblest  and 
lowest  of  those  whom  He  created  in  His  image,  that  I have 
felt  constrained,  as  one  of  the  men  thus  publicly  assailed 
and  threatened,  to  request  permission  to  reply  to  the  rev- 
erend author. 

I might  fitly  disregard  the  question,  upon  which  all  Mr. 
Aked’s  arguments  hinge,  whether  the  use  of  stimulants  in 
moderate  quantities  is  harmful  in  the  broader  sense  or 
not,  as  being  neither  in  my  province  nor  that  of  a theo- 

53 


54 


PROHIBITION. 


logian  to  determine.  But  since  Mr.  Aked’s  entire  article 
is  based  upon  a settlement  of  this  very  question  in  his  own 
very  pragmatical  way,  it  is  only  right  and  just  for  me  to 
state,  by  way  of  preface  to  my  reply,  that,  audacious  as  it 
may  seem,  I disagree  with  the  reverend  gentleman’s  con- 
clusions in  this  all-important  regard. 

Of  course,  I am  neither  a minister  nor  an  expert  physi- 
cian. But  I belong  to  a family  whose  members  for  many 
generations  have  indulged  in  stimulants,  and  I do  so  my- 
self for  diverse  reasons.  Firstly,  because  I have  always 
been  accustomed  to  them ; secondly,  because  I like  them, 
and  because  they  have  wrought  me  no  harm ; and,  lastly, 
because  I was  taught  by  a Christian  sect,  whose  standing 
among  religious  denominations  is  not  inferior  to  that  of 
the  church  to  which  the  reverend  gentleman  himself  be- 
longs, that  the  moderate  use  of  stimulants  is  sanctioned  by 
the  revealed  Scriptures,  and  can  injure  no  normally  healthy 
being. 

I am  aware  that  all  this  will  not  affect  the  Reverend  IMr. 
Aked’s  uncompromising  attitude.  He  is  of  a different  opin- 
ion, and  he  has  given  due  notice  to  all  men  that  whosoever 
disagrees  with  him  and  the  particular  coterie  of  experts 
whose  dicta  he  approves  is,  ipso  facto,  ruled  out  of  court, 
and  unworthy  of  further  consideration.  So  that  precludes 
the  possibility  of  any  further  argument  with  the  reverend 
gentleman  on  that  score. 

~ Still,  since  the  burden  of  Mr.  Aked’s  article,  which  will 
undoubtedly  have  been  read  by  many  thousands,  is  the  in- 
tentional iniquity  of  the  brewer,  as  evidenced  by  the  mere 
fact  that  he  brews  and  sells  beer,  and  the  consequent  duty 
of  the  church  to  anathematize  and  excommunicate  him, 
without  further  trial  or  hearing,  I may  be  permitted  to 
plead  before  the  greater  tribunal  of  the  public  the  following 
circumstance  in  extenuation  of  my  offense  in  belonging  to 
the  fraternity  which  Mr.  Aked  so  deeply  abhors. 


REV.  CHAS.  F.  AKED. 


55 


As  it  happens,  I received  my  chief  religious  instruction 
from  the  Moravian  Brethren.  It  is  perhaps  not  generally 
known  that  John  Wesley,  the  founder  of  the  Methodist 
Church,  was  converted  by  one  of  these  Brethren,  and  estab- 
lished, under  the  influence  of  the  Moravian  teachings,  what 
is  known  to-day  as  the  Methodist  faith.  The  connection 
is,  therefore,  from  some  points  of  view,  quite  a respectable 
one.  The  Moravian  creed  may  be  summarized  in  the  sim- 
ple doctrine  that  the  Scripture  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  Under  that  doctrine,  though  they  do  not  mingle 
with  the  rest  of  the  world,  the  j'\Ioravian  Brethren  engage 
in  many  industries,  among  which — horribile  dictu — is  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  beer.  While  at  school  and  under 
the  tuition  of  these  excellent  men,  whose  religious  earnest- 
ness, and  whose  Christian  works  no  man,  not  excepting 
even,  I fancy,  Mr.  Aked  himself,  will  question,  I often  vis- 
ited their  chief  brewery,  drank  beer  in  its  cellars,  and 
learned  from  them  by  precept  and  example  that  God  had 
caused  the  grape  to  grow  in  order  that  man  might  produce 
from  it  the  wine  that  “gladdeneth  the  heart.” 

So  much,  then,  for  myself,  and  for  the  Moravian  Breth- 
ren, to  whose  instruction  I owe  such  little  good  as  is  in 
me,  just  as  John  Wesley,  the  founder  of  the  Methodist 
Church  owed  them,  nearly  two  hundred  years  ago,  that 
which  made  him  the  man  he  afterwards  became. 

Now  comes  the  Rev.  Mr.  Aked  at  the  commencement  of 
this  twentieth  century  and  says : “And  clearly,  therefore, 
the  Church  must  refuse  to  hold  communion  with  any  man 
or  woman  who  manufactures  or  sells  intoxicating  liquor. 
No  man  making  his  money  by  the  liquor  traffic  must  be 
admitted  to  Church  membership.  The  money  made  in 
the  trade  must  not  be  accepted,  knowingly,  by  any  Chris- 
tian community.” 

I pass  over  the  fact  that  this  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion includes  an  entire  Christian  Church,  and  probably  the 


56 


PROHIBITION. 


most  intensely  religious  body  of  men  living  to-day.  Inas- 
much as  they  have  the  misfortune  (or  is  it  the  willful  wick- 
edness?) to  differ  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Aked,  they  presum- 
ably deserve  in  his  eyes  no  better  fate.  But  passing  from 
the  particular  to  the  general  question,  is  it  not  fair  to  ask 
upon  what  authority,  Biblical  or  otherwise,  the  Rev.  ]\Ir. 
Aked  takes  the  ground  he  does?  The  Scripture  is  open  to 
the  layman  as  well  as  to  the  preacher,  and  unless  great 
changes  have  taken  place  since  I was  instructed  in  the 
meaning  of  the  revealed  Word,  the  teachings  of  Christ  are 
still  the  foundation  upon  which  the  fabric  of  the  modern 
Christian  Church  is  reared.  If  this  is  really  so,  and  if  a 
new  Messiah  has  not  arisen  in  this  twentieth  century  to 
put  to  shame  and  confound  the  hitherto  recognized  one  and 
only  Messiah,  whom  we  all  worship,  let  me  tell  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Aked,  and  I say  it  in  all  solemnity,  as  one  endowed 
as  he  is  with  an  immortal  soul,  as  one  who,  before  God, 
is  an  equal  participator  with  him  in  the  divine  love  which 
cleanses  from  all  sin,  that  a church  which  would  adopt  the 
stand  he  advocates  would  no  longer  be  a House  of  God, 
but  a House  of  the  Evil  One,  in  which  the  name  of  Christ 
is  taken  in  vain  and  His  divine  message  of  peace  and  good- 
will to  all  men  made  a hideous  mockery. 

Contrast  with  this  shocking  utterance  of  a minister  of 
Christ  the  words  of  Christ  Himself,  addressed  (significantly 
enough)  to  the  Chief  Priests  and  Elders  of  the  people  of 
Israel  in  connection  with  the  parable  of  the  two  sons  who 
were  ordered  by  their  father  to  go  and  work  in  his  vine- 
yard. The  Gospel  of  Matthew  quotes  them  as  follows 
(chapter  2i,  verses  31  and  32)  : “Jesus  saith  unto  them; 
Verily  I say  unto  you  that  the  publicans  and  the  harlots 
go  into  the  Kingdom  of  God  before  you,  for  John  came 
unto  you  in  the  way  of  righteousness,  and  ye  believed  him 
not,  but  the  publicans  and  the  harlots  believed  him ! And 


REV.  CHAS.  F.  AKED. 


57 


ye,  when  ye  had  seen  it,  repented  not  afterward,  that  ye 
might  believe  him.” 

Contrast  furthermore  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Aked’s  ex- 
hortation to  the  ministry  at  large  to  deny  manufacturers 
of  liquor  the  benefits  of  the  church  which  his  Master 
founded,  the  action  of  that  Master  himself,  as  recorded  in 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  (chapter  9,  verses  10  to  13)  : “And 
it  came  to  pass,  as  Jesus  sat  at  meat  in  the  house,  behold 
many  publicans  and  sinners  came  and  sat  down  with  Him 
and  His  disciples;  and  when  the  Pharisees  saw  it,  they 
said  unto  His  disciples.  Why  eateth  your  Master  with  pub- 
licans and  sinners?  But  when  Jesus  heard  that,  he  said 
unto  them.  They  that  be  whole  need  not  a physician,  but 
they  that  are  sick.  But  go  ye  and  learn  what  that  meaneth, 
I will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice ; for  I am  not  come  to 
call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance.” 

“I  will  have  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice.”  How  will  Mr. 
Aked  account  to  his  Master  Christ  for  refusing  to  any 
mortal  being  the  comforts  of  the  church,  in  which  His 
word,  as  handed  down  to  us  by  His  apostles,  and  not  Mr. 
Aked’s  word,  is  law? 

Does  it  never  occur  to  those  who  preach  the  gospel  of 
temperance  that  there  is  an  intemperance  of  the  mind  which 
is  far  more  shocking,  far  more  disgraceful,  and  far  more 
disastrous  in  its  effects  than  the  intemperance  of  the  body? 
The  drunkard  is  dangerous  because  he  has  temporarily  lost 
all  cognizance  of  law,  of  duty,  of  decency,  and  of  regard 
for  his  fellow-men.  Opposition  inflames  his  anger,  and  he 
is  liable  to  murder  any  one  who  contradicts  him.  Yet  what 
is  he  but  a spiritual  drunkard,  who,  because  be  differs, 
however  honestly,  frOhi  thousands  and  thousands  of  his 
fellow-men,  proceeds  in  cold  blood  to  murder  their  souls, 
instead  of  ministering  to  them,  as  the  physician  ministers  to 
those  whom  he  believes  to  be  sick? 

Christ  was  pre-eminently  the  Messenger  of  Charity.  I.': 


58 


PROHIBITION. 


there  one  word  of  true  Christian  charity  to  be  found  in  all 
the  utterances  of  His  servant,  the  Rev.  C.  F.  Aked,  D.  D., 
on  the  subject  of  temperance.  He  poses  as  the  new  savior 
of  mankind.  But  what  a difference  between  this  latter-day 
savior  and  the  divine  Messiah  whom  he  would  supersede, 
and  whose  teachings  he  arrogantly  sets  at  naught!  He 
says  that  “the  use  of  intoxicating  wine  at  the  Lord’s  Table 
is  entirely  without  defense and  no  doubt  he  is  entitled 
to  his  opinion.  Yet  the  majority  of  Christian  Churches  be- 
lieve that  the  use  of  such  wine  is  an  essential  part  of  the 
lawful  celebration  of  the  Savior’s  sacrifice.  And  what  is 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Aked’s  attitude  towards  these  Christian 
churches  that  differ  from  him? 

“Their  determination,”  he  says,  “to  persevere  in  the 
practice  of  providing  intoxicating  wine  for  sacramental 
purposes  grows  out  of  one  of  two  things.  It  grows  out 
of  a love  of  the  liquor — which  is  dangerous ; or  it  grows 
out  of  hate  of  the  temperance  sentiment — which  is  de- 
testable. Conscience  is  concerned  with  the  protest  against 
it.  Conscience  can  not  be  concerned  with  the  demand  for 
it.”  Any  argument  to  the  contrary,  the  reverend  gentle- 
man declares  further  on,  can  only  be  “one  of  wicked  selfish- 
ness or  of  more  wicked  spitefulness.” 

Did  ever  a more  uncharitable,  ever  a more  flagrantly 
intemperate  utterance  issue  from  the  mouth  of  one  who 
professes  to  be  a servant  of  Christ  Jesus?  Would  it  be 
entirely  unjustifiable  to  say  that  such  an  utterance  as  this, 
in  face  of  the  undoubted  fact  that  millions  of  true  Chris- 
tians honestly  adhere  to  the  belief  which  is  here  so  shame- 
fully stigmatized,  is  conclusive  proof  of  the  mental  inebriety 
of  the  person  that  makes  it?  If  we  glance  at  the  records 
of  history,  we  shall  find  that  it  is  from  men  who  assumed 
the  same  uncompromising  attitude  towards  those  that  dif- 
fered from  them  on  matters  of  religious  detail  that  man- 


REV.  CHAS.  F.  AKED. 


59 


kind  has  suffered  ravages  worse  than  any  that  can  be  at- 
tributed to  the  effects  of  alcohol. 

Of  course,  no  man  with  eyes  to  see  and  ears  to  hear  can 
be  ignorant  of  the  evils  consequent  upon  the  excessive  in- 
dulgence in  drink.  Even  the  Rev.  Mr.  Aked  admits  that 
nobody  on  the  face  of  the  earth  (and  presumably  he  in- 
cludes in  the  category  the  wicked  manufacturer  of  stim- 
ulants himself)  defends  drunkenness.  But  is  it  not  strange 
that  the  intemperance  among  men  who  drink  is  infinitesimal 
as  compared  with  the  intemperance  exhibited  by  those  who 
preach  the  doctrine  of  temperance  from  the  pulpits  and  the 
platforms  of  the  country?  In  Mr.  Aked’s  opinion  everyone 
who  drinks  is  practically  a drunkard,  just  as  everybody 
who  disagrees  with  him  is  a willful  wrongdoer.  In  fol- 
lowing up  this  particular  line  of  argument,  the  reverend 
gentleman  allows  his  zeal  to  outrun  his  discretion;  only 
momentarily,  however.  For,  in  the  course  of  his  reason- 
ing, he  has  arrived  at  the  inevitable  and  logical  conclusion 
that  the  sin  of  drinking  (even  in  moderation)  is  no  less 
heinous  than  the  sin  of  manufacturing  drink.  A perfectly 
intelligent  conclusion,  of  course,  but  a dangerous  one  to 
the  cause  championed  by  Mr.  Aked,  as  the  writer  presently 
realizes.  For  he  promptly  pulls  himself  up,  and  goes  on: 
“Well,  perhaps  so.  But  a plea  may  be  submitted  (in  this 
case)  for  suspense  of  judgment.”  And  why?  “Because,” 
says  Mr.  Aked,  “some  of  the  best  men  and  women  the 
Church  has  ever  known  have  been  non-abstainers ; and  a 
movement  intended  to  unchurch  the  church  member  who 
has  not  properly  grasped  God’s  purpose  for  this  generation 
would  justly  be  regarded  as  intolerable.” 

Truly,  intolerable!  Just  as  intolerable  as  the  unchurch- 
ing of  those  who  manufacture  and  supply  the  drink  which 
some  of  the  best  men  and  women  the  church  has  ever 
known  indulge  in.  Only,  in  case  the  latter  were  un- 
churched, the  congregations  of  the  churches  might  become 


6o 


PROHIBITION. 


uncomfortably  thinned,  and  so — acting  under  Mr.  Aked’s 
advice — the  churches  are  to  agree  to  wink  their  eye  at  the 
iniquity  and  call  things  square  for  the  moment. 

Was  ever  sophistry  more  gross?  Again,  what  a con- 
trast with  his  divine  Master!  Where  Christ  found  sin.  He 
not  only  denounced  it,  but  He  scourged  the  sinner,  regard- 
less of  consequences.  But  when  the  Rev.  Mr.  Aked  in 
his  indiscriminate  ire  finds  himself  entrained,  not  beyond 
what  he  considers  true  facts  and  strict  logic,  but  beyond 
what  he  deems  prudent  policy,  he  promptly  compromises 
with  his  conscience,  makes  a temporary  compact  with  the 
Evil  One,  and  agrees  to  condone  the  religious  felony  he 
has  been  fulminating  against — pending  the  advent  of  a more 
opportune  time  to  punish  it. 

The  Church,  even  as  conceived  by  Mr.  Aked,  should 
surely  be  consistent.  If  the  man  or  woman  who  manufac- 
tures stimulants  is  to  be  excommunicated  because,  in  ad- 
dition to  the  millions  of  good  people  who  drink  those  stimu- 
lants in  moderation,  there  are  some  who  indulge  in  them 
to  excess  and  are  driven  in  consequence  to  poverty  and 
crime,  why  not  hold,  for  instance  the  manufacturer  of  gun- 
powder similarly  responsible  for  the  wholesale  slaughter 
of  human  beings  which  the  use  of  gunpowder  involves? 
Or  the  manufacturer  of  playing  cards  answerable  for  the 
distressful  etTects  of  the  gambling  spirit  prevalent  among 
men?  And  so  forth.  Indeed,  there  would  be  more  reason 
to  condemn  the  gunpowder-maker  than  the  maker  of  stimu- 
lants, for  the  former  manufactures  no  small  part  of  his 
product  with  the  full  knowledge  and  intention  that  it  is 
to  be  used  for  murderous  purposes  (in  war,  for  instance), 
whereas  the  latter’s  product  is  certainly  not  manufactured 
with  the  specific  intention  that  it  shall  be  indulged  in  to 
excess  and  thus  cause  misery  and  crime.  It  is  its  misuse, 
not  its  use,  in  spite  of  all  that  Mr.  Aked  says  to  the  con- 
trary, that  brings  about  this  result,  and  for  the  misuse  of 


REV.  CHAS.  F.  AKED. 


6i 


stimulants  the  manufacturer  of  them  can  no  more  be  held 
responsible  than  the  manufacturer  of  gunpowder  can  be 
held  responsible  for  the  deaths  of  those  who  fall  in  war, 
or  who  use  the  gunpowder  in  order  to  take  their  own  or 
their  neighbors’  lives.  War  and  the  manufacture  of  gun- 
powder, of  course,  are  sanctioned  by  the  Governments  of 
the  world.  But  so  is  the  practice  of  manufacturing  and 
drinking  stimulants.  Does  Mr.  Aked,  as  a Christian  min- 
ister, approve  the  former  any  more  than  he  does  the  latter? 
The  Church,  he  implies,  is  to  defy  Csesar  in  the  one  case, 
and  excommunicate  those  whom  Caesar  protects.  Then 
why  not  act  likewise  in  the  other  case.  Is  there  the  same 
astute  reason  for  a suspense  of  judgment  in  this  latter  case 
as  was  advanced  for  not  excommunicating  the  best  men  and 
women  of  the  Church  who  are  non-abstainers? 

We  are  told  that  we  live  to-day  in  the  age  of  reform. 
I believe  we  do.  But  it  is  a peculiarity  of  reform  that  it 
is  liable  itself  to  become  the  subject  of  reform  in  a later 
age.  Have  we  not,  as  just  exemplified,  the  spectacle  of 
Mr.  Aked  reforming  the  doctrines  of  Him  who  may,  to  say 
the  least,  be  called  the  greatest  reformer  this  world  has 
ever  seen?  If  posterity  ever  christens  our  age,  I fancy  it 
will  call  it  the  age  of  reckless  conclusions.  Our  worship 
of  reason  has  reached  the  point  of  idolatry,  and  the  true 
human  god.  Common  Sense,  has  been  relegated  to  the  cel- 
lar. For  this,  I veritably  believe,  the  professional  experts 
and  statisticians  are  indirectly  responsible.  They  are  par 
excellence  the  public  nuisances  of  our  day.  To  them  is 
largely  due  the  mass  of  reckless  legislation  which  issues 
annually  from  the  mills  of  our  State  parliaments,  only  to 
add  to  the  multitude  of  freak  laws  which  already  disgrace 
our  statute  books.  The  problems  which  our  forefathers 
tackled  with  cautious  and  diffident  minds,  we,  in  the  pleni- 
tude of  our  latter-day  wisdom,  hack  at  frantically  with 
knives  and  hatchets.  We  storm  them  with  expert  evidence 


62 


PROHIBITION. 


and  statistics.  We  know  the  cause  of  everything,  and  are 
ready  to  apply  the  sure  remedy  for  evils  which  have  ex- 
isted, and  defied  all  the  reason  and  the  remedies  of  out 
ignorant  ancestors,  for  thousands  and  thousands  of  years. 
It  is  no  longer  an  age  of  progress  that  we  live  in,  but  an 
age  of  final  arrival.  If  the  cart  does  not  go  fast  enough 
at  this  last  stage,  with  the  horse  harnessed  in  front  of  it, 
presto ! the  conditions  are  reversed,  and  the  cart  is  placed 
before  the  horse,  with  the  full  assurance  that  we  shall  reach 
our  journey’s  end  in  a twinkling. 

The  drink  evil,  with  its  so-called  concomitant  evils,  is 
one  of  the  problems  at  issue.  Mr.  Aked  has  the  true  solu- 
tion of  it  at  his  command,  as  thousands  of  others  have,  and 
he  flourishes  in  his  hand  the  usual  magic  wand  that  enables 
him  to  produce  the  miracle,  viz ; statistics.  Statistics, 
among  others,  touching  the  relation  of  crime  and  poverty  to 
drink. 

That  drink  is  the  primary  cause  of  crime  and  poverty, 
and  that  without  it  90  per  cent,  of  the  crimes  we  now  de- 
plore would  not  be  committed,  has  so  long  been  the  slogan 
of  our  would-be  reformers  that  it  has  become,  like  the  axiom 
of  mathematics,  a tacitly  accepted  fact,  which  to  deny  would 
be  as  serious  as  to  deny  that  the  earth  revolves  around  the 
sun.  The  reason,  in  view  of  the  trend  of  the  age,  is  ap- 
parent. Statistics  show  that  fifty  per  cent,  of  our  prison 
inmates  have  indulged  in  drink  to  excess.  Ergo ; Drink 
caused  their  downfall  and  their  lapse  into  crime.  The  fact 
never  seems  to  occur  to  anyone  that  it  might  be  just  as 
logical  to  say  that  these  unfortunates  drank  to  excess  be- 
cause they  were  constitutionally  criminal,  as  it  is  to  say 
that  they  became  criminal  because  they  yielded  to  a consti- 
tutional craving  for  drink. 

I anticipate  the  reply  that  these  men  succumbed  to  drink 
before  they  became  criminals,  and,  inasmuch  as  the  cause 


REV.  CHAS.  F.  AKED.  63 

always  precedes  the  effect,  the  logical  conclusion  is  that 
drinking  led  to  crime,  and  not  vice  versa. 

But  does  this  answer  really  meet  the  point?  Two  facts 
may  be  concomitant,  and  yet  have  no  relation  to  each  other, 
or  they  may  follow  one  another,  and  yet  not  necessarily 
bear  to  each  other  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect.  And  at 
the  same  time  these  same  two  facts  may  be  traceable  to  one 
common  basic  origin  or  cause.  That  criminals  should  be 
addicted  to  excessive  indulgence  in  drink  seems  to  me  to 
be  anything  but  surprising.  No  more  surprising  is  the  fact 
which  is  undoubted,  that  a person  given  to  excessive  drink- 
ing is  frequently  found  to  be  a criminal.  But  to  my  mind, 
these  two  facts,  broadly  speaking,  prove  neither  that  drink 
and  crime  bear  a relation  to  one  another,  nor  that  the  one 
is  the  cause  or  the  effect  of  the  other.  They  prove,  if  they 
prove  anything,  that  the  tendency  to  crime  and  the  tendency 
to  drink  have  one  common  origin  in  the  human  being,  viz ; 
an  inherent  moral  weakness,  which  incapacitates  him  from 
controlling  his  appetites  and  passions  and  resisting  tempta- 
tion. To  say  that,  if  the  temptation  to  drink  had  been 
removed  from  him,  he  would  never  have  become  a crim- 
inal, is  to  say  that  which  no  one  can  prove  to  be  true.  If 
it  were  true,  we  should  expect  to  find  a minimum  of  crim- 
inals among  those  nations  in  which  the  drinking  habit  does 
not  prevail  at  all,  such  as  among  Mahometan  peoples.  Yet, 
is  crime  less  prevalent  among  the  Turks,  the  Persians,  or 
the  Mahometans  of  the  East  Indies,  than  it  is  in  our  west- 
ern civilization? 

The  same  arguments  apply  to  drink  in  its  relation  to 
poverty.  It  is  commonly  stated  that  most  poverty  is  due 
to  the  ravages  of  drink.  Incidentally  it  may  be  mentioned 
that  the  exhaustive  investigations  of  Mr.  Charles  Booth 
into  the  cause  of  poverty  in  England  led  him  to  discover 
the  surprising  fact  that  only  a small  percentage  of  the 
paupers  in  the  institutions  he  examined  owed  their  condi- 


64 


PROHIBITION. 


tion  to  drink.  I say  the  fact  is  surprising,  for  I should 
certainly  have  expected  him  to  find  a very  different  re- 
sult; not  because  I believe  that  drink  is  the  cause  of  pov- 
erty, but  because  I know  that  poverty  for  different 
reasons  than  crime  is  liable  to  engender  a tendency 
to  overindulge  in  drink.  Those,  in  fact,  who  think 
they  can  remove  poverty  by  destroying  the  source  of 
drink,  are  putting  the  cart  before  the  horse.  Poverty  and 
the  misery  that  trails  in  its  wake,  drive  more  men  to  drink 
than  vice  versa,  and  by  saving  human  beings  from  pov- 
erty we  shall  prevent  far  more  drunkenness  than  we  shall 
prevent  poverty  by  saving  men  from  the  temptation  of 
drink.  In  other  words,  there  are  far  more  men  who  drink 
to  excess  because  they  are  poor  than  there  are  men  who 
are  poor  because  they  drink  to  excess. 

No  one  knows  this  better  than  the  manufacturer  of 
stimulants.  It  may  surprise  many  men  to  hear  that,  when- 
ever an  industrial  depression  strikes  the  country,  the  busi- 
ness of  the  liquor  manufacturer  is  the  last  to  feel  its  effects, 
and  that  when  trade  once  more  resumes  its  normal  condi- 
tion, again  the  business  of  the  liquor  manufacturer  is  the 
last  to  benefit  by  the  change.  And  what  is  the  reason? 
Trade  depression  throws  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men 
out  of  work.  Misery  results,  and  the  natural  tendency  is 
to  seek  respite  from  misery  in  drink.  Consequently  a large 
portion  of  what  the  worker  has  hoarded  for  a rainy  day  is 
spent  in  drink.  When  it  is  dissipated,  of  course,  he  has 
no  longer  the  wherewithal  to  procure  liquor.  The  moment 
trade  brightens  again,  and  he  finds  emplo3"ment,  his  need  of 
the  comforting  stimulant  has  disappeared,  and  he  refrains 
from  indulging  even  in  moderate  drinking,  until  he  has 
filled  the  void  in  the  home  exchequer  created  during  the 
period  of  his  misery.  The  conclusion  here  is  evident  that 
poverty  is  the  inciting  cause  of  the  immoderate  use  of  stimu- 


REV.  CHAS.  F.  AKED. 


65 


lants,  and  that  the  moment  that  cause  ceases  to  exist  men 
relapse  into  their  normal  state  of  decency  and  moderation 

I am  aware,  of  course,  that  the  origin  of  the  criminal 
propensities  of  one  generation  of  men  is  frequently  traced 
to  the  vicious  habits  of  their  progenitors,  excessive  drink- 
ing being  as  usual  assigned  as  the  salient  primary  cause 
of  degeneracy.  Let  us  agree  that  it  is.  But,  again,  what 
does  that  prove  ? It  proves  merely  that  the  father,  or 
grandfather,  or  other  ancestor  of  the  criminal  subject  be- 
longed to  that  unfortunate  and  ever-present  percentage  of 
mankind  whose  characters  are  inherently  weak  and  unstable, 
and  it  is  these  characters  that  are  liable  to  pass  from  the 
parent  to  the  offspring,  not  the  particular  vices  they  have 
succumbed  to;  just  as  it  is  not  a particular  disease  that  is 
hereditary  in  certain  families,  but  the  propensity  to  acquire 
that  disease.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  soil  that  is  handed 
down  from  father  to  son,  not  the  seed  or  the  plant  that 
happens  to  thrive  in  that  soil. 

Hence  it  is  this  soil  that  should  have  the  attention  of 
our  philanthropic  gardeners,  not  the  seeds  that  may  fall 
upon  it.  To  imagine  that,  by  erecting  a fence  around  it  the 
soil  will  lose  its  peculiar  fitness  for  certain  undesirable 
vegetation,  is  no  less  absurd  than  to  suppose  that  by  with- 
drawing from  the  weakling  the  opportunities  to  indulge 
in  a certain  vice,  let  it  be  drink  or  any  other  form  of 
excess,  his  weak  nature  will  be  cured  and  thenceforward 
render  immune  from  the  temptations  that  beset  it  in  other 
directions. 

It  is  extraordinary  to  what  lengths  our  statistical  friends 
are  carried  in  drawing  conclusions  from  the  mere  con- 
comitancy  of  certain  facts.  Because  there  are  saloons  which 
are  the  haunts  of  the  criminal  classes,  therefore,  as  Mr. 
Aked  says,  these  saloons  must  be  the  breeding-ground  of 
all  crime,  and  if  they  were  exterminated  there  would  no 
longer  be  any  criminals. 

The  conclusion  is  arrived  at  by  the  same  faulty  process 


66 


PROHIBITION. 


of  logic  as  that  which  results  in  the  assertion  that  drink 
is  the  cause  of  crime  and  poverty.  In  both  cases,  the  only 
premise  upon  which  the  conclusion  is  reached  consists  in 
the  circumstance  that  the  propensity  to  drink  and  the  pro- 
pensity to  commit  crime  are  found  to  be  co-existent  in  the 
same  individuals.  Is  there  any  more  reason  for  saying  that 
the  criminal  saloon  is  the  breeding-ground  of  the  criminal 
classes  than  there  is  in  saying  that  the  criminal  classes  are 
the  breeders  of  the  criminal  saloon?  Who  was  there  first. 
The  criminal  or  the  saloon?  If  it  was  the  saloon,  then  the 
saloon  must  have  commenced  its  existence,  and  continued 
to  exist  for  a long  time,  without  any  patronage,  and  surely 
it  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  the  existence  of  a particular 
class  of  patronage  is  a condition  precedent  to  the  establish- 
ment of  the  particular  class  of  trade  or  business  that  caters 
to  that  patronage.  It  is  always  the  demand  that  creates 
the  supply,  not  vice  versa,  and  the  failure  to  recognize  this 
patent  fact  is  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  troubles  which  our 
latter-day  reformers  are  constantly  bringing  upon  them- 
selves and  the  unfortunate  world  they  are  bent  upon  raising 
to  a state  of  perfection. 

I am  not  advancing  a plea  here  for  the  existence  of  the 
criminal  dive,  any  more  than  I am  pleading  the  cause  of 
the  excessive  drinker.  Both  are  reprehensible,  both  are  sore 
spots  on  our  civilization.  The  question  is,  how  can  we  best 
remedy  the  evil  and  heal  the  sores?  I deny  the  postulate 
that  because  criminals  haunt  a certain  class  of  saloons, 
which  cater  to  their  needs,  therefore  all  saloons  ought  to 
be  abolished,  just  as  I oppose  the  proposition  that,  because 
some  people  drink  in  excess,  therefore  moderate  drinking 
should  not  only  be  condemned,  but  made  subject  to  the 
terrible  punishment  the  Rev.  IMr.  Aked  holds  in  reserve 
for  it,  pending  the  arrival  of  a more  convenient  time  than 
the  present  for  inflicting  it. 

In  the  extravagance  of  his  denunciatory  passion  the  rev- 


REV.  CHAS.  F.  AKED. 


67 


erend  gentleman  commits  himself  to  the  startling  assertion 
that  moderate  drinking  is  worse  than  drunkenness,  and  in 
his  attempt  to  prove  this  assertion  he  gets  strangely  con- 
fused in  his  statistics  and  his  logic.  “Every  man  or 
woman,”  he  says,  in  this  particular  connection,  “familiar 
with  the  work  of  the  churches  has  pondered,  sometimes 
almost  in  agony  of  spirit,  the  problem  presented  by  the 
mass  of  smug,  callous  indifference  which  no  preaching  or 
pleading  can  pierce.”  And  to  what  cause  does  he  ascribe 
this  smug  callous  indifference?  I give  his  own  words; 
“The  habitual  use  of  intoxicating  drink  in  quantities  which 
never  go  beyond  what  is  called  ‘moderation,’  which  has 
never  caused  drunkenness,  and  which  probably  never  will, 
creates,  more  than  anything  else  with  which  we  have  to  do, 
the  type  of  character  so  hard  to  move.  * * * It  is  not 
drunkenness  which  is  the  preacher’s  deadliest  enemy;  it  is 
drinking.” 

A strong  statement,  and  a clinching  one,  assuredly,  if 
it  be  true.  But  is  it  true,  according  to  the  testimony  of 
the  reverend  gentleman  himself?  Listen  to  what  he  says 
when  he  requires  the  same  statistics  to  prove  the  need 
of  suspending  judgment  against  the  members  of  the  Church 
who  indulge  in  drink.  “ ‘It  hath  not  pleased  God  to  give 
His  people  salvation  by  dialectic,’  ” he  quotes,  “and  in 
many-sided  moral  questions  there  are  sentiments  most  real 
and  potent  which  must  be  considered,  but  which  can  no 
more  be  expressed  in  syllogism  or  sorites  than  love  can  be 
measured  with  a yardstick  or  faith  weighed  by  avoirdupois. 
Between  the  earnest  Christian  toiler  on  the  one  hand,  lov- 
ing God  and  loving  men,  genuinely  misled  into  taking  stimu- 
lants and  sincerely  ignorant  of  his  duty — and  the  saloon- 
keeper and  brewer  on  the  other,  whose  sin  is  not  accidental, 
but  a trade,  who  earns  a living  by  wrecking  the  bodies  and 
damning  the  souls  of  men,  and  who  accumulates  more 
money  as  he  accomplishes  more  iniquity,  there  roll  un- 


68 


PROHIBITION. 


fathomed  oceans  of  moral  distinction.  Some  of  the  best 
men  and  women  the  Church  has  ever  known  have  been  non- 
abstainers.” 

Here  we  have,  then,  an  example  of  the  same  statistics, 
brought  to  bear  in  two  ways  upon  the  moderate  drinking 
habits  of  the  church  member,  and  leading  of  necessity  to 
two  directly  opposite  conclusions.  And  if  we  take  these 
two  conclusions  and  use  them  as  the  premises  of  a new 
syllogism,  we  arrive  at  the  final  grand  conclusion  that  “the 
smug,  callously  indifferent  church  members”  and  “the  best 
men  and  women  the  Church  has  ever  known”  are  one  and 
the  same  people. 

Truly,  a wonderful  result  of  logic,  or  sorites,  as  Mr. 
Aked — I wonder  whether  intentionally — calls  his  syllogistic 
process.  I was  taught  that  the  original  meaning  of  the 
term  sorites  was  the  leading  up  from  true  premises  to  a 
manifestly  false  conclusion.  Did  the  Rev.  Mr.  Aked  realize 
the  peculiar  appropriateness  of  the  term  when  he  employed 
it  in  reference  to  his  own  system  of  logic? 

A line  of  argument,  to  be  convincing,  must  not  only  be 
consistent,  but  it  must  be  sincere.  To  stretch  a point  in 
order  to  reach  a desired  conclusion  is  neither  profitable  to 
the  argument,  nor  is  it  truthful.  To  say,  for  instance,  as 
Mr.  Aked  does,  that  people  who  drink  in  moderation  are 
dull  and  heavy  and  stupid,  and  devoid  of  quick  responsive- 
ness, generous  ardor,  and  warm-hearted  zeal,  is  to  state 
what  millions  of  people,  who  have  the  same  opportunities 
of  observation  as  Mr.  Aked  has,  know  to  be  directly  con- 
trary to  the  truth.  The  trouble  with  men  of  IMr.  Aked’s 
pronounced  opinions  is  that  they  are  too  apt  to  argue  from 
their  preconceived  conclusions  to  the  premises  necessary  to 
establish  them,  instead  of  reversing  the  process.  All  ex- 
perts agree  on  the  subject  of  the  dangerous  effects  of  the 
excessive  use  of  alcohol,  but  all  experts  do  not  agree  on 


REV.  CHAS.  F.  AKED. 


69 


the  subject  of  the  effects  of  alcohol  when  consumed  in  mod- 
erate quantities. 

It  may  be  conceded  at  once  that  some  people  should  not 
use  alcohol  in  any  quantities.  But  some  people  are  also 
compelled  to  avoid  dark  meats,  starchy  foods,  tomatoes, 
etc.,  etc.,  because  they  happen  to  be  predisposed  to  certain 
ailments,  which  such  articles  of  diet  are  liable  to  aggravate. 
A common  piece  of  expert  evidence  we  frequently  hear  ad- 
duced in  proof  of  the  harmful  effects  of  alcohol  is  the  fact 
that  the  introduction  of  a certain  quantity  of  liquor  into 
the  human  system  serves  markedly  to  decrease  the  working 
capacity  of  the  subject.  I read,  for  instance,  in  a recent 
publication  that  a certain  expert  physician  had  found  such  a 
decrease  of  working  capacity  to  be  produced  among  the 
workers  in  a factory  after  he  had  caused  them  to  imbibe 
thirty-five  grains  (over  an  ounce)  of  alcohol.  Would  this 
scientist  have  been  equally  astonished  to  find  the  same  de- 
crease in  the  working  capacity  of  these  men  produced  by 
their  eating  two  meals  at  the  same  time?  In  the  first 
case,  the  writer,  who  bases  his  argument  on  these  particu- 
lar statistics,  reasons  from  them  that  such  a thirty-five 
gram  dose  of  alcohol  on  each  week-day  of  the  year  would 
suffice  to  keep  a man  permanently  alcoholized  to  a scien- 
tifically measurable  extent.  Would  it  not  follow,  then,  in 
the  second  case,  that,  because  a man  suffers  indigestion 
from  eating  two  meals  at  one  time,  his  stomach  must  be- 
come permanently  ruined  if  he  consumes  two  such  meals 
in  the  course  of  every  twenty-four  hours? 

Everyone  with  any  experience  knows  that  the  indul- 
gence in  an  appreciable  quantity  of  alcohol  during  work- 
ing hours  is  not  conducive  to  an  increase  of  the  working 
capacity  of  the  person  who  thus  indulges,  any  more  than 
the  eating  of  a too  hearty  meal  at  midday  is.  All  things 
have  their  time  and  their  purpose,  and  alcohol  is  no  ex- 
ception. Why,  then,  accuse  alcohol  of  that  which  we  con- 


70 


PROHIBITION. 


done  or  pass  over  in  silence  in  the  case  of  all  other  arti- 
cles of  diet? 

But  let  me  conclude.  I have  no  quarrel  with  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Aked  on  account  of  his  selection  and  applica- 
tion of  available  statistics,  except  that  I believe  he,  like 
many  others,  misapplies  them.  But,  as  a follower  and 
worshipper,  however  humble,  of  the  Savior  of  mankind, 
I have  a serious  and  righteous  quarrel  with  him  as  a 
mouthpiece  of  that  Savior,  when  he  uses  his  sacred  office, 
not  to  preach  the  Word  of  God  to  those  whom  he  con- 
siders wrongdoers,  but  to  deny  them  the  comfort  and 
the  healing  power  of  that  Word,  which  was  given  to  all 
men  alike.  Never  has  the  extravagance  of  the  movement 
which  is  so  deplorably  misnamed  the  temperance  move- 
ment been  more  forcibly  and  shockingly  brought  home  to 
me  than  it  has  been  by  the  perusal  of  this  article  from  the 
pen  of  a prominent  Christian  minister.  If  it  has  been 
left  to  a mere  laymen  like  myself  to  lift  his  solitary  voice 
in  protest  against  this  travesty  of  Christ's  message  to  man, 
the  fact  will  not  redound  to  the  credit  of  the  thousands  of 
Christian  ministers  who  stand  by  and  allow  it  to  pass  un- 
rebuked. 

Fairness  has  always  been  one  of  the  prime  character- 
istics of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race.  Yet,  strangely  enough, 
to-day  the  extravagant  and  persistent  vituperation  proceed- 
ing from  a host  of  men  who,  from  the  nature  of  their 
calling,  can  command  and  hold  the  attention  of  the  public, 
and  who  are  gifted,  above  the  ordinary  being,  with  the 
powers  of  dialectic,  has  so  cowed  the  generality  of  men, 
that,  not  only  are  many  fair-minded  and  disinterested  per- 
sons, who  in  their  hearts  disapprove  this  violence  and  ex- 
travagance, reluctant  to  enter  the  lists  with  them,  but  to  a 
large  extent  the  press  itself,  for  political  and  other  rea- 
sons, deems  it  wise  to  close  its  columns,  both  to  these  fair- 
minded  and  disinterested  onlookers,  and  to  those  inter- 


REV.  CHAS.  F.  AKED. 


71 


ested  ones,  whom  Mr.  Aked  and  his  adherents  would  see 
annihilated,  body  and  soul,  without  a trial,  without  a hear- 
ing, without  even  the  ordinary  human  privileges  which  are 
accorded  to  the  humblest  and  meanest  applicant  at  the  bar 
of  public  opinion. 

Every  question,  however  plausible  one  side  of  it  may 
appear,  has  another  side  to  it,  and  the  inability  or  the  want 
of  opportunity  to  present  that  other  side  must  not  be  mis- 
taken for  proof  of  its  weakness  or  its  non-existence.  It 
is  perhaps  scarcely  fair  to  expect  of  men  whose  calling 
is  purely  commercial  that  they  shall  of  a sudden  don 
dialectical  armor,  and  sally  forth,  lance  in  hand,  to  give 
successful  battle  to  an  army  of  professional  champions 
adept  in  all  the  arts  and  practices  of  the  polemical  joust. 
But  it  may  in  all  fairness  be  expected  by  these  men,  and 
by  the  greater  public,  who  are  the  final  judges  of  a tour- 
ney, that  the  one  side,  when  challenged  to  the  fray,  shall 
not  be  deprived  of  the  use  of  those  weapons  which  the 
other  side  is  privileged  to  employ,  and  which  it  is  able  to 
employ  with  all  the  superior  skill  of  the  trained  expert. 

The  present  writer  is  one  of  these  men,  and  he  is  keenly 
alive  to  the  fact  that  he  may  be  lamentably  deficient  in  those 
qualities  which  are  necessary  to  enable  him  to  cope  with 
the  intelligence,  the  erudition,  and  the  rhetorical  powers  of 
men  of  Mr.  Aked’s  natural  ability  and  culture.  If  he  is, 
let  the  fact  serve  as  a proof  of  the  inequality  of  the  cham- 
pions, not  of  the  merit  or  the  demerit  of  their  respective 
causes. 


Is  tke  Art  of  Preacking  a 
Lost  One? 


BY  V.  M.  O’SHAUGHNESSY. 


Not  SO  many  years  ago,  the  end  of  all  sermons  and  moral 
teaching  was  the  betterment  of  the  individual  character, 
the  strengthening  of  the  moral  purpose,  the  awakening  or 
revivifying  of  the  conscience. 

Men  were  sought  to  be  made  better,  not  by  the  removal 
of  the  occasions  of  sin,  for  these  differ  for  each  and  every 
individual,  but  by  urging  adherence  to  those  strong  prin- 
ciples of  right,  which  are  the  basis  of  all  the  good  the 
world  has  ever  known. 

The  explanation  of  these  principles  with  the  logical 
results  of  their  acceptance  and  application  followed  by  the 
strong  plea  for  their  acceptance  and  application  formed  the 
rich  theme  of  all  preaching  and  teaching. 

How  beautifully  the  old-time  divine  developed  the  two 
great  commandments ! How  sublimely  the  ten  old  laws 
shone  out,  illumined  by  the  light  of  the  sacred  writings 
when  the  curtain  was  lifted  by  the  worshipful  hand  of  the 
earnest  speaker ! 

“Remember  that  thou  keep  holy  the  Sabbath  Day,”  was 
not  sought  to  be  enforced  by  a bill  to  prohibit  Sunda)”-  base- 
ball, but  was  made  a principle  of  loving  duty  to  the  Divine 
Creator. 

72 


ART  OF  PREACHING. 


73 


“Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God 
in  vain,”  was  not  attempted  to  be  made  law  by  removing 
the  name  of  God  from  the  dictionaries,  but  by  showing  that 
the  great  loving  Lord,  watching  over  Israel,  deserved  that 
respect,  which  demanded  that  His  name  be  called  only  in  a 
worthy  purpose.  Is  the  art  lost?  Are  the  pulpits  no  longer 
able  to  enunciate  principles — to  enrapture  their  hearers  by 
ringing  the  glorious  changes  of  divine  harmony  upon  the 
old-time  scale  of  right? 

Must  we  prohibit  money  because  people  steal  ? Books, 
because  from  them  some  draw  false  conclusions?  Speech, 
because  of  calumny  and  slander  and  lies?  Where  shall  we 
stop?  Can  there  be  any  way  of  removing  all  possible 
opportunities  of  transgression?  Are  we  striving  for  the 
true  object? 

There  are  some  theories  that  change  with  time,  there 
were  some  fancies  that  are  now  facts,  and  there  were  some 
accepted  facts  that  are  now  but  patent  fallacies,  but  there 
are  also  axiomatic  truths  and  eternal  principles,  and  these 
old-time  truths  and  principles  must  form  the  basis  of  all 
character. 

Without  them  there  can  be  no  morality — with  them  an 
ever  better  people — and  in  their  inculcation  the  only  real 
moral  uplifting. 

Has  the  art  been  lost? 


Tke  National  iVlodel  License 
League 


BY  T.  M.  GILMORE,  PRESIDENT. 


The  National  Model  License  League  was  organized  in 
October,  1907,  in  Louisville,  Ky.  The  purpose  for  which 
this  movement  was  formed  was  to  offer  a solution  of  the 
liquor  problem  to  the  press,  and  to  the  conservative  ele- 
ment in  society  in  opposition  to  the  radical  measures  pro- 
posed by  the  Anti-Saloon  League. 

The  men  connected  with  this  organization  are  closely  in 
touch  with  the  liquor  question,  and  understand  it  in  all  of  its 
details,  and  they  agree  with  the  press  of  this  country  that 
the  lawless  saloon  should  be  put  out  of  business;  that  the 
dive  should  be  eliminated,  and  that  gambling  and  vice  in 
general  should  not  flourish  in  connection  with  the  sale  of 
alcoholic  beverages. 

They  believe  that  the  demand  for  alcoholic  beverages  is 
as  legitimate  as  the  demand  for  food — that  is,  they  believe 
that  people  have  just  as  much  right  to  drink  as  they  have 
to  eat — but  they  believe  that  the  men  who  cater  to  those 
who  would  drink  should  conduct  their  places  decently,  and 
in  strict  accord  with  the  laws  of  the  community  in  which 
they  do  business. 

They  believe  that  most  of  the  evils  connected  with  the 
liquor  traffic  are  due  to  the  imperfections  of  our  present 
excise  laws. 


74 


MODEL  LICENSE  LEAGUE. 


75 


They  believe  that  the  saloon  keeper  has  not  been  given  a 
fair  show,  and  that  when  he  is  given  a fair  show  he  will 
immediately  respond  by  bringing  his  business  up  to  its 
higher  possibilities. 

They  believe  that  the  saloon  keeper  should  be  made  a free 
man — that  he  should  be  relieved  from  the  domination  of 
political  bosses  and  licensing  boards — and  to  do  this  they 
contend  that  the  license  to  retail  liquors  should  continue 
year  after  year,  just  as  the  license  to  run  a restaurant  or 
dry  goods  store  or  a newspaper  continues,  and  that  no  one 
should  have  the  right  to  take  a man’s  license  away  from  him 
unless  he  violates  the  law,  or  unless  the  people  decide  by  a 
majority  of  all  voters  that  the  business  should  be  eliminated. 

We  do  not  agree  that  prohibition  or  local  option  is  right 
in  theory  or  in  practice,  but  we  do  believe  that  the  individ- 
ual license  should  be  sacred  so  long  as  the  holder  is  not 
convicted  of  the  violation  of  law,  and  so  long  as  local 
option  or  prohibition  does  not  prevail. 

We  believe  that  the  number  of  saloons  should  be  lim- 
ited to  not  exceeding  one  for  each  five  hundred  of  the 
population,  because  it  is  of  very  great  importance  that  each 
license  be  given  a sufficient  value  to  encourage  the  holder 
to  preserve  it  by  obedience  to  law. 

We  believe  that  high  license  is  wrong  in  principle,  and 
is  shown  to  be  wrong  by  experience.  If  the  liquor  business 
is  right,  the  men  who  are  engaged  in  it  should  be  treated 
fairly,  and  should  not  be  penalized ; if  it  is  right  for  people 
to  drink,  then  it  is  right  for  people  to  sell  things  to  drink; 
if  the  sale  of  drinks  is  right,  then  the  man  who  caters  to 
those  who  would  drink  should  be  treated  with  as  much  con- 
sideration as  the  man  who  caters  to  those  who  would  eat. 

We  insist,  therefore,  that  license  fees  should  be  reason- 
able, because  high  license  compels  the  handling  of  inferior 
beverages ; we  believe  in  absolute  obedience  to  law  and  to 
insure  this  we  would  give  the  saloonkeeper  a license  of 


76 


PROHIBITION. 


very  great  value  as  outlined  above,  and  then  we  would 
provide  for  the  first  conviction  by  a jury  of  the  violation 
of  law  by  the  holder  of  a license,  the  license  should  be  sus- 
pended for  thirty  days,  and  for  the  second  conviction  it 
should  be  canceled  and  the  holder  never  again  licensed  to 
retail  liquors  in  that  State. 

We  would  have  the  license  so  drawn  as  to  provide  that 
conviction  should,  first,  suspend,  and  next  cancel  the  license, 
so  as  to  take  all  discretion  away  from  the  political  influences 
that  in  the  past  have  enslaved  the  retail  liquor  dealers  of 
this  country. 

These  views  in  regard  to  licensing  the  saloon  have  been 
endorsed  by  practically  the  entire  daily  press  of  the  United 
States.  During  the  month  of  February  of  this  year,  by 
actual  measurement,  this  organization  was  given  nearly 
seven  million  solid  columns  of  space  in  the  daily  papers  of 
the  country.  It  has  also  received  attention  from  the  lead- 
ing magazines,  such  as  McClure’s,  Collier’s,  Harper’s,  the 
Outlook,  and  the  like. 

An  article  written  by  the  president  was  published  in  the 
Outlook  for  February  13,  1910,  and  in  the  Outlook  for 
March  19,  1910,  four  columns  were  devoted  to  this  move- 
ment. 

Up  to  the  present  time  five  States  have  incorporated 
the  principles  advocated  by  this  league  into  their  excise 
laws,  with  the  exception  of  the  first-named — that  is,  per- 
petual license.  We  realize  that  it  will  take  time  to  educate 
the  public  to  an  understanding  of  the  importance  of  this 
idea,  and  of  the  fact  that  there  is  no  danger  in  it  to  society. 

All  that  we  ask  is  that  the  saloon  keeper  shall  have  the 
same  right  to  continue  year  after  year  in  his  business  that 
every  other  merchant  has,  and  it  will  be  seen  in  time  that 
the  objections  offered  to  this  provision  are  absurd  and  un- 
warranted, and  that  there  is  no  more  reason  to  say  that  a 
law  of  this  kind  would  fasten  perpetual  liquor  franchises  on 


MODEL  LICENSE  LEAGUE. 


77 


society,  than  there  is  to  say  that  the  average  merchant  or 
the  average  publisher  has  a perpetual  franchise  simply  be- 
cause he  has  a right  to  demand  that  his  license  to  do  busi- 
ness be  renewed  each  year  if  his  business  be  one  that  is 
licensed,  so  long  as  he  conducts  his  business  properly. 

Until  this  right  is  extended  to  the  retail  liquor  dealer, 
the  liquor  problem  will  not  be  solved,  and  the  liquor  dealer 
will  not  be  eliminated  from  politics,  because  under  present 
conditions  he  is  forced  by  the  law  of  self-preservation  to 
be  eternally  in  politics,  and  no  arguments  that  can  be  made, 
and  no  eloquence,  and  no  persuasiveness  will  have  as  much 
force  with  him  as  this  law  of  self-preservation. 

The  National  Model  License  League  has  the  enthusiastic 
support  of  every  element  in  the  trade,  as  well  as  that  of 
every  man,  be  he  minister,  lawyer,  doctor,  or  plain  citizen, 
understanding  what  model  license  law  really  means. 

At  our  third  annual  convention,  held  in  St.  Louis  in 
February,  resolutions  setting  forth  model  license  law  as 
the  only  practical  solution  of  the  liquor  problem  and  the 
only  practical  method  of  combating  prohibition  were  signed 
by  ministers,  mayors,  distillers,  brewers,  wholesalers,  re- 
tailers and  supply-men,  and  it  gives  us  pleasure  to  note  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Timothy  McDonough,  president  of  the  Na- 
tional (Retail)  Liquor  League,  was  one  of  those  who  en- 
dorsed the  league  before  the  convention  and  affixed  his  sig- 
nature to  our  resolutions. 


Protest  Against  tke  Prokitition  Idea 


BY  HENRY  WATTERSON. 


At  the  close  of  a masterful  address  delivered  at  a gath- 
ering of  representative  Kentucky  citizens,  Mr.  Henry  Wat- 
terson,  distinguished  statesman,  noted  journalist  and  orator, 
said : 

“I  protest  against  that  religion  which  sands  the  sugar 
and  waters  the  milk  before  it  goes  to  its  prayers.  I protest 
against  that  morality  which  poses  as  a saint  in  public  to  do 
as  it  pleases  in  private.  As  the  old  woman  said  of  the  old 
man’s  swearing,  ‘If  there’s  anything  I do  hybominate,  it  is 
hypocrisy.’  In  my  opinion,  that  which  threatens  Kentucky 
are  not  the  gentlemanly  vices,  but  perfidy  and  phariseeism 
in  public  and  in  private  life. 

“The  men  who  made  the  Blue  Grass  famous,  who  put 
the  brand  of  glory  upon  its  women,  its  horses  and  its 
vintage,  were  not  ashamed  to  take  a drink  nor  to  lay  a 
wager;  though  they  paid  their  losses  and  understood  where 
to  draw  the  line.  They  marked  the  distinction  between 
moderation  and  intemperance.  They  did  not  need  to  be 
told  what  honor  is.  They  believed,  as  I believe,  that  there 
is  such  a thing  as  pretending  to  more  virtue  than  honest 
mortals  can  hope  to  attain. 

“I  know  very  well  how  I shall  be  rated  for  saying  this ; 
how  my  words  will  be  misrepresented  and  misquoted  and 
misconstrued ; I told  you  not  to  ask  me  to  come  here,  but 
78 


PROTEST  AGAINST  PROHIBITION. 


79 


being  here,  I am  bound  to  speak  as  I am  given  the  mind 
to  think  and  the  light  to  see,  and  to  warn  our  people  against 
the  intrusion  of  certain  ‘isms,’  which  describe  themselves  as 
‘progress’  and  muster  under  the  standards  of  what  they 
call  ‘God  and  Morality,’  but  which  fifty  years  ago  went  by  a 
very  different  name ; ‘isms’  which  take  their  spirit  from 
Cotton  Mather,  not  from  Jesus  Christ;  ‘isms’  which  where 
they  can  not  rule,  would  burn  at  the  stake ; ‘isms’  which  em- 
brace the  sum  of  all  fanaticism  and  intolerance,  proposing 
that  instead  of  the  rich,  red  blood  of  Virginia,  ice  water 
shall  flow  through  the  veins  of  the  people ; ‘isms’  which, 
in  one  word,  would  blot  Kentucky  out  of  the  galaxy  of 
stars  and  recreate  her  in  the  dread  image  of  Maine  and 
Kansas. 

“I  refuse  to  yield  to  these.  Holding  the  ministry  in 
reverence  as  spiritual  advisers,  rejecting  them  as  emissaries 
of  temporal  power,  I do  not  intend,  if  I can  help  it,  to 
be  compelled  to  accept  a rule  of  modern  clericalism,  which, 
if  it  could  have  its  bent  and  sway,  would  revive  for  us  the 
priest-ridden  systems  of  the  middle  ages.  I do  not  care 
to  live  in  a world  that  is  too  good  to  be  genial ; too  ascetic 
to  be  honest ; too  proscriptive  to  be  happy.  I do  not  believe 
that  men  can  be  legislated  into  angels — even  red-nosed 
angels.  The  ‘blue  laws’  of  New  England— dead  letters  for 
the  most  part — did  more  harm  to  the  people,  whilst  they 
lasted,  than  all  other  agencies  united.  I would  leave  them 
in  the  cold  storage,  to  which  the  execration  of  some  and  the 
neglect  of  all,  consigned  them  long  ago,  not  embalm  them 
and  import  them  to  Kentucky  to  poison  the  meat  and  drink 
and  character  of  the  people.  I shall  leave  my  home  life, 
my  professional  career  and  my  familiar  associates  to  say 
whether  I do  not  place,  and  have  not  always  placed,  the 
integrity  of  man,  the  purity  of  woman  and  the  sanctity  of 
religion  above  all  earthly  things ; but  I hope  never  to  grow 
too  old  to  make  merry  with  my  friends  and  forget  for  a 


8o 


PROHIBITION. 


little  that  I am  no  longer  one  and  twenty ! When  the  time 
arrives  for  me  to  go  to  my  account,  I mean  to  go  shout- 
ing; to  go  with  my  flag  flying,  and,  as  I have  never  lied 
to  the  people  of  Kentucky,  please  God  I never  shall.  I 
have  told  them  a great  many  unpalatable  things.  I have 
met  their  disapproval  full  in  the  face.  I have  lived  to 
see  most  of  my  admonitions  against  this,  that  and  the  other 
vain  hope  vindicated  by  events.  I want  to  live  yet  a little 
longer  still  to  tell  the  truth  and  shame  the  devil ; but  if 
obscurity  and  adversity  and  neglect  shall  overtake  me  it 
will  be  a comfort  even  in  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death 
that  from  first  to  last  I fought,  not  for  the  speckled  gos- 
pels of  the  short-haired  men  of  Babylon,  but  for  the  simple 
manhood  and  lovely  womanhood  of  old  Kentucky — never 
New  Kentucky,  but  always  and  forever  Old  Kentucky — 
your  birthright  and  mine.” 


Cliarles  Eliot,  Ex-P  resident  of 
Harvard  University,  on 
Prokitition 


Ex-President  Eliot,  of  Harvard,  sums  up  the  whole 
case  against  prohibition  in  its  effects  on  the  social  and 
political  life.  He  says  : 

“The  efforts  to  enforce  it  [prohibition]  during  forty 
years  past  have  had  some  unlooked  for  effects  on  public 
respect  for  courts,  judicial  procedure,  oaths  and  law,  Leg- 
islatures and  public  servants.  The  public  has  seen  law 
defied,  a whole  generation  of  habitual  law-breakers, 
schooled  in  evasion  and  shamelessness,  courts  ineffective 
through  fluctuations  of  policy,  delay,  perjuries,  negligence 
and  other  miscarriages  of  justice;  officers  of  the  law  double- 
faced  and  mercenary,  legislators  timid  and  insincere.” 

Such  is  the  character  and  the  record  of  prohibition. 

81 


County  Local  Option  a Misnomer 

BY  JOSEPH  DEBAR. 


All  public  movements  having  for  their  object  the  better- 
ment of  economic  conditions,  undoubtedly  have  their  origin 
in  sincerity  of  purpose  on  the  part  of  some  of  their  pro- 
moters. 

We  say  some,  because  in  all  large  movements  there  are 
always  found  supporters  who  join  for  profit  and  not  for 
principle.  Many  great  reforms  fail  because  they  are  un- 
practical, and  where  such  efforts  fail  it  is  frequently  due 
to  the  insincere  and  the  venal  gaining  control  of  the  move- 
ment. And  it  is  among  the  venal — the  reformers  for  rev- 
enue only — that  we  find  the  noisy  and  blatant. 

The  demagogue,  equipped  with  voice  and  lungs,  not 
seldom  leads  and  brushes  aside  the  thinker  and  the  capable 
executive,  and  it  is  at  this  stage  that  we  find  the  weak,  the 
vacillating  and  the  incompetent  attracted  by  the  noise  of 
the  procession.  They  swing  into  line  and  march  to  the 
cadence  of  others’  footsteps  and  help  swell  the  throng. 

This  panorama  of  voters  attracts  the  politician  who  looks 
for  votes  at  all  times,  votes  only — votes  now — and  plenty 
of  them.  The  future  does  not  interest  him,  nor  does  the 
welfare  of  the  country.  And  the  grandstand  and  gallery 
artists  of  all  grades  and  varieties — they,  too,  follow  the 
multitude  and  crowd  up  near  the  head  of  the  show,  close  to 
the  brass  band  and  the  banners.  Hence  we  see  popular 
82 


COUNTY  LOCAL  OPTION. 


83 


outbreaks  starting  with  some  merit  and  some  principle  go 
on  to  success  for  a time — later  we  see  them  recede  and 
wither.  The  blight  is  not  hard  to  find.  What  begins  in 
good  morals  must  persevere  in  good  morals  if  it  would  win. 
What  has  its  foundation  in  justice  must  go  forward  in  jus- 
tice if  it  would  command  respect.  What  originates  in  purity 
of  purpose  must  work  with  clean  hands  or  meet  with  con- 
demnation and  failure.  The  blight  is  always  found  in  devia- 
tion from  immutable  principles  of  justice  and  right. 

The  Anti-Saloon  League  is  now  recognized  as  the  or- 
ganization under  whose  guidance  the  prohibition  activities 
of  the  various  States  are  being  carried  on.  It  had  its  origin 
among  a few  sincere  people  who  honestly  deplored  the 
objectionable  features  of  some  American  saloons.  In  the 
beginning  of  its  career  the  Anti-Saloon  League  openly  pro- 
claimed that  it  was  not  opposed  to  the  sale  of  liquor,  but 
complained  of  and  sought  to  remedy — only  the  evil  and 
offensive  saloon.  This  announcement  appealed  to  an  out- 
raged public  sense,  for  many  saloons  of  recent  years  cer- 
tainly needed  renovating  in  many  respects  and  in  numerous 
localities.  Under  the  false  pretense  of  opposing  only  the 
objectionable  saloon  the  Anti-Saloon  League  started  its 
present  crusade  against  anything  and  everything  connected 
with  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor. 

The  leadership  of  the  anti-liquor  movement  soon  drifted 
into  the  hands  of  the  professional  salary  drawers.  Its  ranks 
were  soon  filled  with  the  crank  reformers  and  the  motlies  of 
all  persuasions. 

With  their  first  marked  successes  the  title  of  their  or- 
ganization became  a misnomer  and  a deception,  for  the 
entire  movement,  beginning  with  a promised  reformation 
of  saloon  conditions,  drifted  rapidly  into  the  total  prohibi- 
tion camp,  until  in  an  interview  with  Purley  A.  Baker, 
National  Superintendent  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  printed 
in  the  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  February  23,  1908,  we  read  the 


84 


PROHIBITION. 


following  utterance,  in  reply  to  a question  by  the  inter- 
viewer: 

“Are  you  working  towards  dnal  prohibition  in  all  the 
States?” 

“There  is  no  reason  for  me  to  dodge  that  question.  Yes! 
Prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic  everywhere  in  this  country 
is  the  end  toward  which  tve  hope  and  labor.” 

Having  made  evident  the  fact  that  the  Anti-Saloon 
League  has  been  sailing  for  some  time  under  false  colors 
in  its  attitude  towards  the  liquor  industries,  it  is  not  re- 
markable that  this  same  sinister  organization  should  be  dis- 
honest in  the  methods  it  adopts  to  attain  its  vaunted  end 
of  “prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic  everywhere  in  this 
country.” 

The  doctrine  of  “total  prohibition”  is  an  unpopular  one 
among  thinking  people  who  have  studied  its  devious  work- 
ings and  fathomed  its  malign  and  degrading  effects  upon 
public  morals.  The  Anti-Saloon  League  therefore  with  the 
same  perspicacious  dishonesty  which  induced  it  to  seek 
and  enabled  it  to  secure  votes  and  gain  contributions  by 
deceiving  the  public  concerning  its  attitude  towards  pro- 
hibition, first  announced  its  advocacy  of  the  doctrine  of 
local  option  as  against  total  prohibition,  and  by  a campaign 
of  mendacity  along  these  lines  led  the  people,  and  especially 
the  voting  public  to  believe  that  it  really  desired  to  inau- 
gurate and  uphold  the  principles  of  local  self-government 
concerning  the  liquor  industries. 

Before  proceeding  to  discuss  the  attitude  of  the  Anti- 
Saloon  League  towards  local  option,  let  us  first  ascertain 
the  true  meaning  of  this  comparatively  new  shibboleth  in 
legislatively  enforced  morality — this  widely  used  and  as 
widely  misunderstood  and  greatly  misleading  war  cr)^ 
Many  people  who  are  intelligent  and  fair  on  most  topics 
seem  to  lose  reason  when  discussing  anything  connected 
with  the  liquor  question.  Hence  the  frequently  perv’^erted 


COUNTY  LOCAL  OPTION. 


85 


use  of  the  term  Local  Option.  “Local”  is  not  a difficult 
word ; it  is  found  in  all  dictionaries.  Webster  defines  it  as 
of  or  pertaining  to  a particular  place  or  to  a definite  region 
or  portion  of  space  restricted  to  one  place.  “Option”  is 
defined  in  the  same  book  as — the  power  of  choosing,  the 
right  of  choice  or  election — an  alternative. 

Therefore  Local  Option  means  the  right  or  power  of 
local  choice  as  applied  to  the  liquor  question ; it  means  the 
right  of  local  choice  to  have  liquor  sold  in  a locality  or  to 
prevent  its  sale. 

The  writer  of  these  lines  is  one  of  many  who  do  not 
believe  in  the  doctrine  that  fifty-one  votes  in  a hundred  in 
any  community  or  in  any  division  or  subdivision  of  any 
community,  should  have  the  right  to  deprive  the  other  forty- 
nine  voters  in  every  hundred  of  the  right  to  buy  and  use 
alcoholic  beverages  if  the  forty-nine  decide  to  purchase  and 
use  them.  But  if  there  be  any  justice  in  a sumptuary  law 
of  this  nature,  the  law,  when  put  in  application,  can  be 
effective  only  when  the  subdivision  of  the  community  in- 
voking it  is  small  and  where  the  voters  recording  their 
sentiments  are  really  in  a large  and  active  majority  in  the 
small  section  of  territory  to  which  the  prohibition  of  liquor 
applies.  Granting  that  under  certain  conditions  the  people 
of  any  municipal  subdivision  or  of  a small  town  or  village 
should  by  a majority  vote  exclude  the  sale  of  liquor,  the 
chances  are  that  with  a fairly  large  majority  the  sentiment 
would  be  strong  enough  to  sustain  the  law  and  secure  a 
reasonably  strict  enforcement  of  it. 

But  the  Anti-Saloon  League  was  not  satisfied  with  such 
conditions,  and  pressed  onward  in  its  total  prohibition 
campaign,  by  demanding  what  it  called  ‘'County  Local 
Option.” 

Right  here  we  find  the  line  of  cleavage  between  the 
honest  and  the  sincere  reformers  who  desire  just  measures 
and  those  who  agitate  for  a livelihood  only. 


86 


PROHIBITION. 


To  stop  at  those  things  which  might  benefit  the  public 
is  never  any  part  of  the  program  of  the  professional  re- 
former. The  Anti-Saloon  League  is  financed  by  contribu- 
tions from  Sunday-school  children  and  pass-the-plate  church 
collections,  supplemented  at  intervals  by  donations  from 
“predatory  wealth”  and  favor-seeking  corporations.  Its 
heelers  know  that  to  stop  means  disaster  to  their  incomes. 
Agitation  must  go  on — no  agitation  no  income  to  the  league, 
no  income  to  the  league  no  salaries  for  the  heelers. 

So  the  next  move  of  the  salaried  leaders  was  for  “County 
Local  Option.” 

We  can  best  illustrate  the  unfairness  of  a law  of  this 
character,  by  citing  specific  instances. 

In  Ohio,  before  the  passage  of  the  so-called  County 
Local  Option  law,  we  had  two  statutes  giving  to  towns  and 
townships  the  option  of  local  self-rule  on  the  liquor  ques- 
tion. Under  one  of  these,  known  as  the  Beal  law,  towns  and 
villages  could  ask  for  an  election  on  the  petition  of  forty 
per  cent,  of  their  qualified  voters. 

Townships  (rural  districts  not  incorporated)  could  call 
an  election  on  a petition  of  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  their 
legal  voters.  Under  these  two  statutes  we  had  four  entire 
counties  in  Ohio  made  dry  by  all  the  towns  in  them  voting 
dry,  and  all  the  townships  doing  the  same  thing.  Thus  we 
saw  whole  counties  made  “dry”  by  a genuinely  local  vote — 
a vote  which  in  the  towns  and  in  the  townships  voting  con- 
secutively expressed  the  true  majority  sentiment  of  the 
voters. 

But  the  agitators  saw  that  out  of  eighty-eight  counties 
in  the  State  only  four  could  be  made  “dry”  by  an  honest 
expression  at  the  ballot-box.  This  meager  showing  was 
not  conducive  to  the  spectacular  in  their  prohibition  cam- 
paign. Therefore  the  methods  of  dishonesty  were  invoked 
to  stir  up  the  populace.  “County  Local  Option”  became  the 
new  shibboleth. 


COUNTY  LOCAL  OPTION. 


87 


Let  us  examine  the  true  meaning  of  this  term.  “County !” 
“Local !”  “Option  !”  Many  counties  in  Ohio  measure  from 
thirty-five  to  forty  miles  in  length  and  breadth.  In  some 
of  them  there  are  towns  and  cities  ranging  from  five  to 
fifty  thousand  of  population.  From  these  we  exclude  the 
four  counties  containing  the  great  cities  of  the  State. 

Let  us  next  examine  the  result  of  a vote  in  one  of 'these 
populous  counties  under  the  so-called  “County  Local  Op- 
tion” law,  Muskingum  county,  of  which  Zanesville  is  the 
county  seat. 

Here  we  have  a city  of  about  28,000  people,  with  a 
total  vote  of  7,250.  When  the  election  took  place  under 
the  “County  Local  Option”  law  (known  in  Ohio  as  the  Rose 
law),  Zanesville  gave  a majority  of  1,414  in  favor  of  the 
sale  of  liquor — to  use  the  common  phrase  Zanesville  went 
“wet”  by  1,414  votes. 

The  total  population  of  the  county  is  about  55,000,  with  a 
total  vote  of  14,973  the  “wet”  and  “dry”  election).  In 
the  “County  Local  Option”  election  the  county  as  a whole 
gave  a “dry”  majority  of  1,01 1.  Under  an  iniquitous  and 
unjust  provision  of  the  law,  where  a county  as  a whole 
votes  “dry,”  the  entire  county  becomes  “dry”  territory. 
Where  the  county  as  a whole  votes  “wet,”  those  towns 
which  under  the  Beal  town  law  and  under  the  township  law 
previously  mentioned  had  voted  “dry,”  remain  “dry.”  This 
is  a piece  of  “heads  I win,  tails  you  lose”  legislative 
chicanery  which  has  been  introduced  in  all  of  the  Anti- 
Saloon  League’s  so-called  “County  Local  Option”  meas- 
ures, in  other  States  as  well  as  in  Ohio. 

Applying  these  conditions  to  Muskingum  County,  we 
see  that  the  city  of  Zanesville,  the  county  seat,  with  a popu- 
lation of  28,000  and  a vote  of  7,250,  gave  a “wet”  majority 
of  1,414  votes,  and  yet  this  city  is  obliged  to  become  “dry” 
territory,  because  the  majority  vote  of  the  county  as  a whole 
placed  the  county  in  the  “dry”column.  This  illustrates  the 


PROHIBITION. 


fact  that  when  so-called  local  option  law  is  extended  to 
the  limits  of  a territory  as  large  as  an  ordinary  Ohio  county, 
it  becomes  an  engine  of  tyranny  and  oppression,  and  such  a 
law  so  applied  may  be  justly  termed  a “county  coercion 
law”  or  a “county  force  law.” 

The  city  of  Zanesville  is  plainly  deprived  of  its  right  of 
option  on  the  liquor  question,  and  is  compelled  to  submit 
to  a county  dictum  enforced  by  the  votes  of  a remote  rural 
population.  In  this  particular  instance  many  of  the  farmers 
who  helped  vote  Zanesville  “dry,”  live  ten,  fifteen,  twenty 
miles  away,  do  their  trading  in  Newark  or  Coshocton,  the 
county  seats  of  adjoining  counties.  Some  of  them  do  not 
even  visit  Zanesville  to  pay  taxes,  but  send  their  tax  checks 
to  the  county  treasurer  in  Zanesville  by  mail. 

The  same  condition  holds  good  in  the  adjoining  county 
of  Licking,  of  which  Newark  is  the  county  seat.  The  city 
of  Newark  gave  a “wet”  majority  of  1,557,  but  was  forced 
to  be  “dry”  territory  by  the  rural  vote.  The  same  is  true 
of  Coshocton — the  adjoining  county — the  town  Coshocton, 
the  county  seat,  voted  “wet”  by  877,  but  the  county  forced 
the  city  to  become  “dry”  by  a vote  of  584  majority.  The 
same  is  true  of  Springfield,  Ohio,  a city  of  about  47,000 
and  the  county  seat  of  Clark  County.  The  county,  with  a 
total  population  of  nearly  60,000,  and  a total  vote  of  17,397, 
went  “dry”  by  only  139  majority. 

Thus  we  see  how  absolutely  the  extension  of  local  option 
to  anything  beyond  a very  small  subdivision  of  local  gov- 
ernment destroys  the  very  essence  of  the  alleged  purpose  of 
the  system. 

County  local  option  becomes  county  coercion.  County 
local  option  destroys  all  option  in  the  totems  and  cities  whose 
inhabitants  repudiate  prohibition  by  their  votes.  It  utterly 
subverts  home  rule,  not  alone  in  the  determination  of  the 
liquor  question,  but  in  many  other  matters  of  urgent  mu- 
nicipal necessity. 


COUNTY  LOCAL  OPTION. 


89 


Zanesville,  for  instance,  had  eighty-three  saloons  paying 
a tax  of  $1,000  each  per  annum.  Under  the  Ohio  law  one- 
half  of  each  one  thousand  dollars’  tax  fee  ($500)  went  to 
the  city  fund,  two  hundred  dollars  to  the  county  fund,  and 
three  hundred  dollars  to  the  State  of  Ohio  for  State  pur- 
poses. 

Therefore  by  the  majority  vote  of  the  people  who  do 
not  live  in  Zanesville,  have  no  interest  in  Zanesville,  seldom 
visit  that  city,  and  care  nothing  about  its  welfare,  the  city 
treasury  of  Zanesville  is  mulcted  out  of  $41,500,  which  must 
be  raised  by  other  forms  of  taxation  upon  the  property  of 
residents  of  the  city.  Thus  the  whole  fiscal  arrangement  of 
the  city  is  overturned  and  interfered  with  chiefly  by  the 
votes  of  non-residents.  What  is  true  of  the  instances  cited 
is  equally  true  in  degree  of  population  of  some  forty  other 
cities  and  towns  of  the  State,  towns  which  voted  “wet”  in 
some  cases  by  large  majorities,  but  which  are  forced  to  be 
“dry”  by  the  rural  preponderance. 

Is  there  any  “option”  in  all  this  to  the  towns  and  cities 
thus  forced  to  be  “dry”  territory?  Is  there  any  choice,  for 
that  is  what  we  have  shown  option  to  mean?  Is  there  any 
local  home  rule  feature  allowed  such  towns  and  cities  thus 
forced  to  be  “dry”  against  the  recorded  majority  vote  of 
their  inhabitants  ? No  option  at  all,  certainly  no  local  choice 
of  program  and  not  even  local  choice  of  methods  or  means 
of  raising  revenue  in  their  home  locality  for  home  purposes. 

These  are  samples  of  the  methods  of  the  Anti-Saloon 
League.  This  is  a truthful  exposition  of  their  mendacity 
concerning  their  advocacy  of  what  they  try  to  fake  the 
public  into  believing  is  “home  rule”  on  the  liquor  question — 
Local  Option — without  any  local  feature  and  without  any 
option. 

A cause  which  resorts  to  such  methods  must  be  intrin- 
sically bad.  An  organization  which  evokes,  invents  and 
employs  such  methods  under  the  leadership  of  ministers  of 


90 


PROHIBITION. 


the  gospel  is  a menace  to  all  Government  and  a danger  to 
the  moral  and  economic  well-being  of  our  country. 

Much  that  has  been  written  in  the  foregoing  effort  to 
explain  the  true  inwardness  of  County  Local  Option  may 
seem  elementary  to  those  who  have  given  this  question  study. 

It  is  surprising  how  few  people  do  study  these  ques- 
tions. County  Local  Option  as  a suggestion  sounds  well 
to  those  who  do  not  think.  If  local  option  is  good  in  a 
city,  precinct  or  ward,  or  in  a village  or  small  town,  why 
not  in  a county — on  the  principle  followed  by  the  patient 
who  swallowed  a whole  bottle  of  medicine,  in  the  belief 
that  if  the  doctor’s  prescription  of  a teaspoonful  was  good 
for  him,  the  whole  bottle  full  would  effect  an  immediate 
cure. 

Time  and  experience  are  demonstrating  the  true  char- 
acter of  this  latest  Anti-Saloon  League  panacea.  Like 
State-wide  prohibition,  county  prohibition  does  not  pro- 
hibit. The  same  ineradicable  traits  of  human  nature  which 
make  State-wide  prohibition  a failure,  bring  the  same  re- 
sults in  the  county  form  of  the  same  old  evil.  What  is 
wrong  as  a whole  is  never  right  in  parts.  What  is  a failure 
where  extended  to  State  limits  is  only  a little  less  a failure 
when  confined  to  a county. 

Local  option  must  be  local  and  it  must  confer,  not  take 
away,  an  option. 

Anything  else  spells  failure. 


County  Option  Defined 

IT  DESTROYS  BOTH  LOCAL  OPTION  AND  HOME  RULE — ITS  SOLE 
PURPOSE,  STATUTORY  PROHIBITION. 


(From  the  World-Herald,  September  26,  1909,  by  James  C. 
Dahlman,  Mayor  of  Omaha,  Neb.) 

A careful  perusal  of  the  within  will  dispel  many  erro- 
neous impressions  on  a subject  of  vast  importance  to  the 
State : 

To  My  Fellow  Citizens — 

What  does  “county  option”  mean?  Most  men  know 
that  the  term  relates  to  proposed  legislation  on  the  subject 
of  the  liquor  traffic,  and  many  suppose  it  to  be  a system 
almost  identical  in  principle  with  local  option. 

Such  supposition  is  erroneous.  The  truth  is  that  “county 
option”  would,  if  enacted,  destroy  local  option. 

Nebraska’s  local  option  system  was  enacted  into  law  in 
i88i,  and  has  been  in  force  ever  since.  It  guarantees  to 
villages,  towns,  and  cities  the  full  measure  of  home  rule 
in  respect  to  the  control  of  the  liquor  traffic.  Under  the 
terms  of  this  time-honored  law  any  incorporated  munic- 
ipality, by  a vote  of  its  legal  electors,  has  the  power  to 
issue  licenses  for  the  sale  of  liquor,  or  to  decline  to  do  so. 
In  other  words,  the  local  community  has  the  right  to  exer- 
cise option  in  the  matter,  and  the  majority  rules.  This 
cardinal  principle  has  made  the  Nebraska  law  famous  all 

91 


92 


PROHIBITION. 


over  the  country.  It  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  enlight- 
ened popular  sentiment  and  with  the  teachings  of  political 
economists  of  renown.  The  president  of  the  league  of 
American  Municipalities,  Horace  E.  Deming,  addressing  the 
last  annual  convention,  declared  that  the  best  authorities  on 
municipal  government  are  strenuously  advocating  a larger 
measure  of  home  rule.  The  New  York  Outlook  of  re- 
cent dates  voices  this  sentiment  in  a remarkable  editorial 
advocating  laws  or  constitutional  amendments  in  the  States, 
delegating  to  cities  and  towns  the  power  to  write  and  to 
adopt  by  popular  vote  municipal  charters  irrespective  of 
the  Legislature. 

I had  a bill  based  on  this  principle  introduced  in  the 
last  Nebraska  Legislature  which  passed  the  House,  but 
was  defeated  in  the  Senate.  It  proposed  to  empower  the 
people  of  cities  to  devise  their  charters,  adopting  them  by 
popular  vote.  Discussing  such  a measure  the  Outlook  of 
September  4 says : “It  would  be  in  accord  with  American 
principles  of  government.  As  it  is,  the  people  of  the 
United  States  that  create  and  amend  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  as  it  is  the  people  of  the  State  that 
create  and  amend  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  so  it  is 
the  people  of  the  city  that  should  create  and  have  the 
power  to  amend  the  charter,  that  is,  the  constitution  of 
the  city.  * * * Let  the  city,  then,  by  means  preferably  of  a 
constitutional  provision,  be  empowered  to  make  its  own 
charter  for  its  own  government  over  its  own  affairs.” 

This  means  absolute  home  rule.  It  is  the  tendency  of 
the  times.  The  soundness  of  the  principle  never  had  a 
better  illustration  than  is  found  in  the  provisions  of  the 
Nebraska  law  for  the  regulation  of  the  liquor  traffic.  Way 
back  in  1881  the  people  of  this  State  enacted  into  law  the 
home  rule  principle,  and  time  and  experience  have  shown 
the  wisdom  of  such  policy.  The  law  has  always  been 
popular  because  it  gave  to  every  community  the  right  to 


COUNTY  OPTION  DEFINED. 


93 


manage  its  domestic  affairs  to  suit  the  will  of  the  ma- 
jority. It  protects  the  people  of  a village  or  city  against 
interference  by  outsiders. 

GROSS  DECEPTION  PRACTICED. 

The  popularity  of  the  Nebraska  local  option  law  has 
always  been  a formidable  barrier  against  invasion  by  the 
agitators  for  State-wide  prohibition.  Statutory  prohibi- 
tion has  proved  so  detrimental  to  States  having  tried  it 
that  its  advocates  find  it  necessary  to  give  it  another  name. 
In  Nebraska  they  have  named  it  “County  Option,”  not  be- 
cause there  is  anything  optional  in  their  scheme,  but 
because  by  the  use  of  the  word  option  they  gain  for  their 
plan  a share  of  the  popularity  enjoyed  by  the  local  option 
law.  In  other  words,  the  professional  prohibitionists  know 
that  many  voters  would  not  support  any  proposed  labeled 
“prohibition,”  whereas  they  can  be  induced  to  look  with 
favor  upon  a plan  that  gives  them  an  optional  vote  in  the 
matter  of  regulating  the  liquor  traffic.  The  unwillingness 
of  the  old-school  prohibitionists  to  agree  with  the  advo- 
cates of  so-called  “county  option”  was  based  upon  tradi- 
tional opposition  to  any  scheme  purporting  to  give  the 
voter  the  option  of  voting  for  license  if  he  will,  for  they 
have  always  denounced  every  principle  under  which  the 
liquor  traffic  could  be  licensed ; but  at  the  York  confer- 
ence I am  told  it  was  recently  explained  that  under  the  so- 
called  county  option  plan  no  one  would  be  permitted  to 
have  his  vote  for  license  made  effective,  and  in  this  way 
it  is  said  the  dissenters  were  pacified. 

Thus  we  see  that  so-called  county  option  is  a misnomer. 
The  word  “option”  is  used  to  deceive  the  voter.  There  is 
no  scheme  of  option  in  the  proposition  now  being  ad- 
vanced by  the  “county  optionists.”  Under  the  terms  of 
the  proposed  law,  the  utmost  care  is  taken  to  make  sure 


94 


PROHIBITION. 


that  every  wet  vote  cast  shall  be  suppressed  and  shorn  of 
force  and  effect,  while  every  vote  for  the  dry  policy  shall 
be  counted  and  made  effective.  In  other  words,  the 
“county  optionist”  invites  the  voter  into  the  voting  booth 
to  exercise  the  right  of  an  elector  to  cast  a ballot  for  or 
against  the  proposition  to  license  the  sale  of  liquor,  while 
at  the  same  time  the  county  optionist  knows  that  every 
vote  for  the  license  policy  will  be  suppressed.  It  is  bare- 
faced deception.  It  is  an  attempt  to  win  support  through 
trickery  and  false  pretense.  It  is  dishonest  because  many 
voters  are  led  to  believe  that  such  a law  if  enacted  by  the 
Legislature  would  enable  them  to  vote  for  the  wet  policy 
covering  the  whole  county  or  for  the  dry  policy  covering 
the  whole  county.  This  is  untrue,  for  the  voter  would 
not  be  given  option  in  the  matter. 

THE  PROPOSED  LAW. 

The  proposed  law  would  divest  the  voter  of  a semblance 
of  option.  Perhaps  in  this  connection  it  would  be  well  to 
insert  a copy  of  the  “county  option”  bill  introduced  in  the 
last  two  sessions  of  the  Nebraska  Legislature,  to-wit: 

“If  a majority  of  all  the  voters  voting  at  such  election 
on  such  license  question  shall  have  voted  in  favor  of  grant- 
ing license,  then  the  no-license  proposition  shall  be  lost. 
Provided,  That  nothing  herein  shall  be  construed  to  pro- 
hibit any  city  council,  board  of  village  trustees,  or  county 
board,  from  withholding  license  Ihe  same  as  if  the  question 
had  not  been  submitted  to  the  county. 

“If  a majority  of  all  the  voters  voting  at  such  election 
on  such  license  question  shall  have  voted  against  grant- 
ing license  then  no  city  council,  village  trustees  or  county 
board,  nor  any  other  authority  within  such  county,  shall 
have  the  power  to  grant  license.” 

The  above  language  means  that  upon  the  enactment  of 


COUNTY  OPTION  DEFINED. 


95 


such  a law,  the  cjuestion  being  put  to  a vote  of  all  the  elec- 
tors of  a county,  and  a majority  voting  in  favor  of  granting 
license,  nothing  in  the  proposed  law  shall  prevent  any  vil- 
lage, city  or  county  from  withholding  license.  That  is  to 
say,  the  will  of  the  majority  may  be  nullified  by  city  and 
county  officials  at  pleasure,  so  far  as  the  terms  of  the  bill 
apply.  But  the  practical  result  would  be  the  remanding 
of  the  question  to  incorporated  villages  and  cities  for  set- 
tlement as  it  is  done  under  existing  law.  No  dry  town 
would  be  permitted  to  become  wet  as  a result  of  such 
county  election. 

Now  look  at  the  other  side  of  it.  Under  the  proposed 
bill  if  a majority  of  the  votes  of  a county  shall  be  for  the 
dry  policy  then  in  that  event  the  entire  area  shall  be  dry. 
Every  wet  town  would  then  be  forced  dry.  Every  ballot 
cast  would  be  given  its  full  force  and  effect. 

Thus  it  is  readily  seen  that  so-called  county  option  is 
simply  county  prohibition.  There  is  not  a word  in  the 
bill  that  would  permit  the  issuance  of  a liquor  license.  The 
advocates  of  county  option  should  be  compelled  to  admit 
that  their  scheme  contemplates  only  county  and  State-wide 
prohibition,  and  they  should  be  forced  to  abandon  the  use 
of  the  word  “option”  in  their  appeals  to  voters. 

OLD  LAW  PROVIDES  COUNTY  OPTION. 

In  the  language  of  the  bill  above  quoted  there  is  an 
important  point  not  likely  to  occur  to  the  reader  who  is 
unfamiliar  with  the  terms  of  the  Slocum  law.  It  will  be 
noticed  that  in  both  clauses  county  boards  are  included 
with  villages  and  cities  as  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the 
bill.  The  man  who  wrote  that  bill  knew  that  the  Slocum 
law  provided  genuine  county  option,  or  he  would  not  have 
been  so  specific.  If  the  prohibitionists  were  honestly  seek- 
ing county  option  only  they  would  be  content  with  provi- 


96 


PROHIBITION. 


sions  of  law  such  as  Nebraska  has  had  since  i88i.  When 
the  late  Lorenzo  Crounse  was  governor  he  publicly  de- 
scribed this  feature  of  the  Slocum  law  in  the  following 
language ; 

“Now  with  regard  to  the  Slocum  law,  while  I can  not 
recall  its  features  in  detail,  one  of  its  most  striking  features 
is  that  it  is  in  its  nature  a local  option  law ; that  is,  it 
allows  the  authorities  of  a county  to  control  the  liquor 
traffic.  We  have  ninety  counties  in  this  State,  and  many 
of  those  counties  have  virtually  prohibition.  In  some  of 
our  counties  three  commissioners  transact  the  business  of 
the  county.  In  others  we  have  township  organization,  and 
a representative  from  each  township,  making  from  ten  to 
fifteen  in  one  county,  goes  to  form  the  county  board. 
And  the  question  resides  with  those  bodies  whether  they 
will  allow  license  or  not.  No  license  can  be  granted  for 
less  than  $500  in  any  instance,  but  they  are  at  liberty  to 
increase  that  license  at  their  pleasure.” 

The  provision  of  the  Slocum  law  to  which  the  governor 
referred  was  Section  i,  to-wit; 

“Section  i.  The  county  board  of  each  county  may 
grant  license  for  the  sale  of  malt,  spirituous  and  vinous 
liquors  if  deemed  expedient,  upon  the  application  by  peti- 
tion of  thirty  of  the  resident  freeholders  of  the  township 
if  the  county  is  under  township  organization.  The  county 
board  shall  not  have  authority  to  issue  any  license  for  the 
sale  of  liquors  in  any  city  or  incorporated  village  or  within 
two  miles  of  the  same.” 

These  quotations  make  it  plain  that  every  rural  com- 
munity within  the  limits  of  a township,  as  well  as  those 
in  villages  and  cities,  have  the  right  of  local  option  in  the 
matter  of  granting  liquor  licenses.  In  this  way  the  terri- 
tory of  the  whole  county  is  covered. 


COUNTY  OPTION  DEFINED. 


97 


IT  IS  COUNTY  PROHIBITION. 

In  view  of  all  the  facts  above  recited  it  will  readily  be 
seen  that  the  prohibitionists  are  not  honestly  striving  for  a 
scheme  of  county  option,  but  that  they  have  another  object 
in  view.  It  is  not  difficult  to  see  what  that  object  really 
is.  Any  one’  who  takes  time  to  study  the  matter  must  con- 
clude that  the  so-called  county  optionists  are  simply  work- 
ing for  county  prohibition  as  the  shortest  cut  to  State- 
wide prohibition. 

The  Omaha  Issue,  organ  of  the  Douglas  County  Anti- 
Saloon  League,  says : 

“We  have  learned  by  the  experience  of  the  Southern 
States  that  county  option  is  the  stepping  stone  to  State-wide 
prohibition,  and  for  this  reason  we  favor  it.  Anti-saloonists 
are  just  as  strong  prohibitionists  as  are  those  who  spell  it 
with  a big  P,  but  they  believe  a half  loaf  is  better  than 
no  bread.” 


WOULD  DESTROY  HOME  RULE. 

There  is  another  important  feature  of  the  “county  op- 
tion” scheme.  The  point  at  which  it  most  radically  differs 
from  local  option  is  in  the  fact  that  it  would  destroy  the 
right  of  a community  to  decide  the  question  of  licensing 
the  sale  of  liquor.  It  would  take  away  from  an  incorpo- 
rated village  the  right  to  decide  for  itself  the  question  of 
issuing  licenses.  It  would  empower  voters  outside  of  a 
village  or  city  to  cast  ballots  on  the  question  of  adopting  a 
policy  which  would  forfeit  thousands  of  dollars  of  license 
fees  now  paid  by  liquor  dealers  into  local  treasuries,  in- 
cluding the  school  fund.  Taxpayers  of  a school  district 
can  not  be  assessed  to  pay  for  maintaining  schools  of  an- 
other district  wherein  they  have  no  legal  vote  nor  voice 
in  conduct  of  the  schools.  Neither  can  they  legally  vote 
to  levy  a school  tax  upon  property  located  in  a district  in 


98 


PROHIBITION. 


which  they  do  not  reside.  The  resident  of  a village  whose 
property  is  taxed  to  maintain  local  government  can  not 
legally  vote  on  questions  concerning  only  the  local  tax- 
payers of  a neighboring  village.  His  will  is  registered  only 
in  relation  to  the  domestic  affairs  of  the  incorporated  divi- 
sion in  which  he  has  a legal  residence.  To  permit  him  to 
participate  in  conducting  the  affairs  of  a village  in  which 
he  does  not  reside  robs  the  legal  voters  therein  of  their 
constitutional  right  to  manage  their  own  affairs  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  will  of  the  majority  of  legal  voters  within  the 
limits  of  the  village  or  city.  That  would  be  subversive  of 
the  right  of  home  rule.  Now  this  is  precisely  what  the 
scheme  of  so-called  county  option  is  designed  to  do,  viz. ; 
The  destruction  of  home  rule,  by  admitting  the  electorate 
of  an  entire  county  to  a voice  in  questions  concerning  only 
the  taxpayers  of  a village  or  a city.  Under  the  scheme  the 
voters  of  a remote  rural  district  would  be  enabled  to  cast 
ballots  against  the  policy  of  collecting  a liquor  license  tax 
in  a village  perhaps  fifty  miles  distant,  in  which  they  could 
not  legally  vote  and  in  which  they  had  no  property  to  be 
taxed  an  additional  amount  to  make  up  the  deficit  in  the 
school  fund  due  to  the  abolition  of  the  license  tax.  If  a 
majority  of  the  taxpayers  of  the  village  or  city  wish  the 
license  tax  to  be  collected  their  will  should  prevail.  They 
are  the  men  who  pay  the  taxes  for  maintaining  local  gov- 
ernment, and  no  power  can  justly  be  given  to  outsiders  to 
impose  their  will  upon  such  village  in  a way  that  would 

compel  the  local  taxpayers  to  pay  more  taxes  for  main- 
taining their  own  government,  or  in  any  other  way.  This 

is  precisely  what  alleged  county  option  aims  to  do.  It 

strikes  at  the  heart  of  the  principle  of  home  rule.  It  would 
destroy  the  right  of  villagers  to  manage  their  domestic 
affairs. 

There  are  many  court  decisions  affirming  the  right  of  a 
community  to  govern  its  political  affairs.  The  Supreme 


COUNTY  OPTION  DEFINED. 


99 


Court  of  Michigan  adheres  to  a doctrine,  which  would,  if 
sustained  by  the  Federal  Supreme  Court,  render  void  a 
statute  giving  outsiders  a right  to  dictate  the  policy  of  a 
village  board  or  a city  excise  board  regardless  of  the  will 
of  the  residents  of  such  village  or  city.  The  Michigan 
Supreme  Court  in  a notable  case  held  in  effect  that  back 
of  the  written  State  Constitution  lies  a general  scheme  of 
local  self-government,  which  is  presupposed  by  the  Con- 
stitution, and  can  not  be  abrogated  by  the  State  Legisla- 
ture. The  court  has  “fully  recognized  that  the  Legislatures 
may  grant,  withhold,  or  take  away  the  corporate  powers 
of  cities,  but  it  can  not  take  away  from  the  people  of  any 
locality  the  fundamental  right  of  managing  their  own 
affairs.’' 

No  doubt  it  is  quite  generally  understood  that  State- 
wide prohibition  is  the  sole  object  to  be  attained  through 
the  county  option  program.  Many  Nebraskans  do  not 
know  the  method  employed  in  Alabama  and  Georgia  by 
the  county  optionists.  They  first  got  the  Legislature  to 
enact  a law  permitting  county  elections  to  decide  the  ques- 
tion of  issuing  licenses  for  the  whole  area  of  the  county. 
This  done,  they  raised  the  issue  in  each  county.  In  the 
two  States  named  they  then  succeeded  in  getting  a ma- 
jority of  the  counties  to  adopt  the  dry  policy,  such  counties 
embracing  the  districts  of  most  of  the  members  of  the 
Legislature,  and,  of  course,  a majority  of  the  whole  State 
population.  With  these  facts  as  a powerful  lever  the  pro- 
hibitionists worked  upon  members  of  the  Legislature,  point- 
ing out  that  more  than  half  of  the  area  of  the  State  having 
adopted  the  dry  policy  by  that  token  the  Legislature  must 
conclude  that  a majority  of  the  people  favored  the  policy 
of  forcing  the  rest  of  the  State  to  go  dry. 

A prohibition  organ  at  Lincoln,  mouthpiece  of  the 
county  optionists.  The  Nebraska  Capitol,  in  a recent  issue, 
said : 


100 


PROHIBITION. 


“County  option  can  go  into  action  three  months  after 
the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature,  and  before  a year  is 
passed  have  eighty  of  the  ninety  counties  dry.  Then  we 
will  be  ready  for  a vote  on  an  amendment,  with  absolutely 
no  doubt  of  victory.” 

Ths  president  of  the  Alabama  W.  C.  T.  U.  said  re- 
cently : 

“Alabama  will  undoubtedly  make  a real  test  of  pro- 
hibition such  as  we  have  not  yet  had.  Some  years  ago  it 
enacted  a county  option  law,  and  after  a large  part  of 
the  territory  of  the  State  was  cleared  up  the  Legislature 
met  in  extraordinary  session  and  decided  that  it  was  use- 
less to  go  to  further  expense  in  holding  county  elections, 
and  enacted  a State-wide  prohibitory  law  which  went  into 
effect  the  1st  of  January,  1909.” 

This  is  also  the  scheme  in  Nebraska  if  the  so-called 
county  optionist  wins. 


Samuel  Gompers  on  Proliibition 


Samuel  Gompers,  president  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  declined  a request  of  Arthur  Burrage  Far- 
well  on  the  7th  inst.,  to  address  a prohibition  meeting  at  the 
Lyric  Theater.  In  a statement  issued  later,  Mr.  Gompers 
said : 

“Experience  has  shown  the  folly  of  prohibition  wher- 
ever it  has  been  tried,  and  that  saloons  can  be  regulated 
by  law. 

“There  is  not  a city  in  Maine  where  a stranger  can  not 
go  and  buy  all  the  beer  and  whisky  he  wants.  There  is 
no  attempt  whatever  to  disguise  the  fact  that  these  places 
are  operating  in  violation  of  the  law. 

“As  for  the  illicit  traffic,  I have  seen  drunken  people 
in  every  city,  but  I have  never  seen  drunks  so  drunkenly 
drunk  as  the  drunks  I saw  in  Maine. 

“Organized  labor  has  been  and  now  is  a greater  factor 
for  temperance  througbout  the  United  States  than  all  the 
prohibition  societies  and  temperance  workers  in  the  land 
ever  have  been.” 


101 


Increase  of  tke  Opium  Peril  in 
Dry  Territory 


In  Putnam’s  Magazine  for  December,  1909,  there  was 
published  an  article  on  “The  American  Opium  Peril,”  by 
Hugh  C.  Weir,  which  presented  material  for  reflection  to 
advocates  of  prohibition. 

The  author,  writing  without  prejudice  and  holding 
closely  to  the  story  of  the  drug  which  he  discussed,  fur- 
nished some  strong  evidence  of  the  havoc  which  the  seductive 
juice  of  the  poppy  is  visiting  upon  mankind  in  prohibition 
or  “dry”  territory  here  in  the  United  States. 

He  instances  the  State  of  Ohio,  since  some  fifty-seven 
counties  were  voted  dry,  as  a profitable  field  for  the  vendor 
of  opium  pellets. 

What  is  true  of  Ohio  is  true  of  all  other  places  where 
the  supply  of  rational  alcoholic  stimulants  is  cut  off  from 
the  people  or  radically  interfered  with. 

There  is  nothing  new  in  the  situation  to  students  of  the 
liquor  question.  Whenever  wine,  beer  or  the  stronger  liquors 
are  legally  banished,  it  has  long  been  known  that  opium, 
morphine  and  cocaine  rapidly  take  their  place.  The  signifi- 
cant feature  in  IMr.  Weir’s  article  is  the  figures  he  submits 
of  the  tremendous  increase  of  drug  using  in  the  United 
States  coincident  with  the  voting  “dr)'”  of  territory  in  so 
many  States. 

Mr.  Weir  presents  his  story  of  the  insidious  menace  in 
a very  entertaining  and  forceful  way,  and  the  anti-prohi- 
102 


OPIUM  PERIL. 


103 


bition  lesson  one  may  read  in  his  article  is  perhaps  the  last 
thing  he  had  in  mind  when  he  wrote  it. 

From  a nation  of  moderate  drinkers  to  a nation  of 
immoderate  opium,  morphine  and  cocaine  fiends,  is  a short 
step  with  our  nervous  and  high-tensioned  populace. 

It  has  long  been  admitted  that  we  as  a people  run  to 
extremes  in  all  things — in  our  work,  in  our  pleasures  and 
in  our  failings. 

The  following  paragraphs  from  Mr.  Weir’s  article  are 
not  pleasant  reading  to  men  who  love  their  country  and 
believe  in  its  people : 

“It  was  with  a shock  that  the  average  American  learned  a 
few  months  ago  that  today  there  are  one  million  two  hun- 
dred thousand  drug  victims  in  this  country,  embracing  one 
person  in  every  sixty-five  of  our  men,  women  and  children. 
San  Francisco  has  the  blight  of  its  underground  China- 
town— and  where  there  are  coolies  there  is  always  opium — 
but  New  York  also  gives  us  some  of  the  worst  of  our 
poppy  dens.  In  Mott,  Pell  and  Park  Streets  one  can  find 
them  by  the  dozens — masked  by  a tawdry,  ill-smelling  Chi- 
nese laundry. 

“On  Second  and  Fourth  Avenues  also  they  abound,  with 
the  same  flapping  line  of  clothes  facing  the  street  and  the 
stare  of  the  uninitiated.  I was  told  not  a great  while  ago, 
that  an  American  woman,  assisted  by  her  two  daughters,  is 
maintaining  on  West  Twenty- third  Street  one  of  the  most 
thoroughly  equipped  and  widely  patronized  ‘dens’  in  the 
city. 

“There  are  forty  institutions  in  this  country  advertising 
a cure  for  the  drug  habit,  and  all  of  them  are  largely  pat- 
ronized. One  such  institution  at  Atlanta,  Ga.,  has  the  names 
of  over  one  hundred  thousand  patients  whom  it  has  treated, 
and  there  are  several  others  that  can  show  fifty  thousand. 
While  it  is  true  that  many  patients  patronize  two  and  three 
and  even  four  of  these  dispensaries,  and  their  names  are 


104 


PROHIBITION. 


thus  duplicated  in  a combined  report  from  the  institutions, 
these  statistics  furnish  a startling  revelation  of  the  ravages 
of  the  drug  evil. 

“The  number  of  drug  consumers  may  be  estimated  from 
the  quantity  of  opium  received  in  this  country  in  the  course 
of  a year.  During  1908,  444,121  pounds  of  crude  opium 
passed  through  the  American  customs  office.  It  is  estimated 
by  officials  of  the  national  Government  that  from  50  to  75 
per  cent,  of  this  quantity  was  used  for  improper  purposes. 
Computing  at  two  ounces,  the  quantity  of  morphine  in 
each  pound  of  opium,  this  gives  some  445,000  to  665,000 
ounces  of  the  drug  consumed  to  satisfy  the  cravings  of  its 
victims.  I am  told  by  the  drug  officials  at  Washington  that 
one  consumer  will  use  on  an  average  of  from  one  to  twelve 
ounces  of  morphine  annually ; and  this  amount  occasionally 
has  been  consumed  by  a single  user  within  one  or  two 
months.  Of  smoking  opium,  151,916  pounds  were  received 
in  the  United  States  in  1908.  While  it  is  impossible  to 
estimate  with  any  accuracy  the  amount  which  one  smoker 
will  use  in  a stated  period,  those  statistics  bear  out  with 
startling  force  the  cry  that  the  drug  peril  has  reached  men- 
acing proportions  in  this  country. 

“Because  ninety  per  cent,  of  Ohio  has  lately  voted  ‘dry,’ 
the  Buckeye  State  has  become  one  of  the  centers  where  the 
opium  vendors  have  been  particularly  active.  The  law  has 
taken  away  the  Ohio  man’s  ability  to  satisfy  his  alcoholic 
thirst.  Now  the  peddlers,  who  are  selling  opium  pellets — it  is 
alleged  on  the  street  corner — offer  him  a substitute  more 
deadly  than  whisky'.  This  is  true  elsewhere.  In  the  prohi- 
bition State  of  IMaine  the  consumption  of  opium  has  in- 
creased 150  per  cent,  in  the  past  ten  years. 

“The  situation  is  not  a new  one.  We  have  confronted 
the  same  facts  in  our  great  prisons  where  a thousand  con- 
victs, barred  from  their  accustomed  stimulants  by  the  walls 
of  the  penitentiary,  have  given  all  their  hoardings  for 


OPIUM  PERIL. 


105 


smuggled  opium  pellets,  slipped  to  their  cells  often  by  guards 
of  the  institution.  Some  one  has  said  that  two-thirds  of 
our  convicts  are  opium  or  morphine  fiends,  who  have  be- 
come so  since  their  imprisonment.  And  the  statement  is 
probably  true.  Also,  it  shows  why  the  drunkard  in  the 
prohibition  territory  springs  at  the  bait  of  the  traveling 
opium  agent.  His  mental,  moral  and  physical  stamina  have 
become  so  decayed  that  his  horizon  is  bounded  only  by  the 
cravings  of  his  appetite.  But  this  is  not  the  worst.  Like 
the  smallpox  victim  he  exposes  the  whole  community  to 
the  plague.” 


Prokitition  tke  Obstacle  to 
Real  Reform 


BY  THE  REVEREND  WILLIAM  A.  WASSON. 

(From  Pearson’s  Magazine,  August,  1909.) 


]\Ir.  Wasson  is  a clergj-man  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  He 
thinks  it  a clergyman’s  duty  to  speak  openly  against  any  system 
which  he  believes  to  be  a source  of  immorality  and  crime.  Some 
folks  say  that  it  does  not  “look  right”  to  be  against  prohibition. 
Mr.  Wasson  believes  that  no  consideration  of  mere  expediency 
should  deter  a clergj-man  from  doing  his  dut^^  The  object  of 
a prohibitory  liquor  law  is  to  lessen  liquor  drinking.  Its  effect 
seems  just  the  opposite.  Mr.  Wasson  has  closely  studied  the  matter 
for  years  and  he  explains  here  just  wherein  a prohibitory  law  fails 
in  its  object.  He  does  not  overlook  the  evils  of  the  saloon.  He 
submits  a plan  for  the  regulation  of  the  liquor  traffic  which  will 
make  for  temperance.  This  article  will  enable  any  man  to  decide 
whether  or  not  a prohibitorj-  liquor  law  will  he  for  the  good  of  his 
own  neighborhood. — Editor  of  Pearson’s  Magasine. 

During  the  decade  immediately  preceding  the  Civil  War, 
a great  “temperance  wave”  swept  over  the  country.  Within 
a period  of  five  years,  eight  States,  viz.,  the  six  New  Eng- 
land States,  Michigan  and  Nebraska,  adopted  prohibition. 
New  York,  Indiana  and  Wisconsin  also  enacted  prohibitory 
laws,  which,  however,  never  went  into  effect,  having  been 
declared  unconstitutional  by  the  highest  courts  of  those 
States. 

Now,  again,  after  a lapse  of  fifty  years,  the  country  is 
witnessing  another  “temperance  wave,”  which  has  already 
risen  higher  than  its  predecessor.  Nor  is  the  end  yet  in 
106 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM. 


107 


sight.  While  in  some  sections  of  the  country  the  “wave” 
has  spent  its  force  and  appears  to  be  receding,  in  other 
sections  it  is  increasing  in  volume  and  strength.  There 
are,  at  present,  eight  States  in  which  statutory  prohibition 
obtains — four  in  the  South,  three  in  the  West,  and  one  in 
New  England.  Under  the  Local  Option  system,  a number 
of  other  States  are  being  prohibitionized  on  the  installment 
plan.  Not  long  ago  it  was  estimated  that  saloons  were 
being  closed  at  the  rate  of  thirty  a day — nearly  11,000  a year. 

The  prohibition  leaders  boast  that,  while  ten  years  ago 
there  were  only  six  million  people  living  in  “dry”  terri- 
tory, there  are  now  thirty-eight  million.  If  prohibition  and 
temperance  be  the  same  thing,  we  are  certainly  making 
prodigious  strides  toward  the  millennium.  But  sober- 
minded  people  have  no  faith  in  the  professions  and  prom- 
ises of  prohibitionists.  Fifty  years  ago  the  leaders  of  the 
crusade  thought  they  saw  the  dawn  of  the  perfect  day, 
when  therE  would  not  be  a dramshop  nor  a drunkard  in 
airdhETand.  They  were  confident  that  the  problem  of  in- 
temperance, which  had  perplexed  and  baffled  mankind  for 
thousands  of  years,  was  as  good  as  solved.  The  great 
dragon  was  about  to  be  slain  and  his  dead  carcass  hurled 
into  the  bottomless  pit.  But  it  turned  out  to  be  all  a dream. 
The  dragon  was  not  slain ; he  was  not  even  seriously 
wounded.  If  he  disappeared  at  all,  it  was  only  to  betake 
himself  to  the  cellar  to  await  the  passing  of  the  storm.  In 
the  course  of  a few  years,  the  “temperance  wave”  passed 
away,  and  the  frenzy  and  hysteria  that  caused  it,  and  was 
caused  by  it,  died  out. 

The  crusade  not  only  did  not  solve  the  liquor  problem, 
but  it  complicated  the  problem  with  new  difficulties.  The 
States  that  adopted  the  prohibitory  system  soon  found 
themselves  confronted  with  two  evils  instead  of  one,  the 
old  disease  of  intemperance  and  the  new  “remedy”  of  pro- 
hibition. And  now,  the  successors  of  the  men  that  ral- 


io8 


PROHIBITION. 


lied  round  the  standard  of  Neal  Dow  are  making  pre- 
cisely the  same  promises  and  predictions  that  were  made 
of  old.  They  assure  us  that  the  present  movement  means 
business.  They  prophesy  that  this  wave  will  not  subside 
until  it  has  swept  over  every  foot  of  American  soil  and 
has  done  to  the  “rum”  traffic  what  Jehovah  did  to  the 
Egyptians  in  the  Red  Sea. 

Prohibitionists  have  simplified  the  liquor  problem  at  the 
expense  of  truth,  reason,  and  common  experience.  Instead 
of  suiting  the  remedy  to  the  disease,  they  have  tried  to 
make  the  disease  conform  to  'their  predetermined  remedy. 

The  liquor  problem  is  one  of  the  most  complex  of  all 
social  problems.  It  does  not  stand  out  alone,  simple,  dis- 
tinct and  isolated,  as  prohibitionists  would  have  us  believe.  It 
is  at  once  a moral,  an  economic,  a physiological,  a psycho- 
logical and,  in  its  final  analysis,  a purely  personal  prob- 
lem.  It  contains  many  elements  and  involves  many  per- 
plexing difficulties.  When  we  look  below  the  surface,  and 
study  this  problem  in  its  deeper  aspects,  we  find  that  its 
roots  are  inextricably  intertwined  with  those  of  the  other 
social  problems.  So  that  genuine  and  thorough  temper- 
ance reform  must  be  conducted  along  many  different  lines. 

The  liquor  problem  is  not  exclusively  nor  chiefly  a leg- 
islative problem,  and  hence  it  can  not  be  solved  by  legisla- 
^ tion  alone.  The  evil  of  intemperance  is  not  caused,  though 
it  may  be  aggravated,  by  bad  legislation,  and  it  can  not  be 
removed,  though  it  may  be  lessened,  by  good  legislation. 
I The  main  lines  of  temperance  reform,  the  most  potent 
agencies  for  the  building  up  of  moral  character  (and  moral 
character  is  the  basis  of  temperance  in  all  things),  lie 
wholly  outside  the  scope  of  legislation.  Legislation  has,  of 
course,  its  part  to  play — and  a not  unimportant  part — in 
any  comprehensive  program  of  temperance  reform ; but 
when  legislation  encroaches  on  the  domain  of  the  church 
and  the  home,  when  it  ventures  to  act  as  a substitute  for 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM. 


109 


purely  social  and  moral  agencies,  it  not  only  fails  to  ac- 
complish any  good,  but  causes  the  greatest  harm.  Speak- 
ing generally,  the  work  that  legislation  can  do  in  the  moral 
sphere  is  of  a negative  character — preventing  and  suppress- 
ing the  evil — while  work  of  a positive  character  must  be 
done  through  other  agencies.  In  undertaking  temperance 
reform  work  along  any  line,  we  must  learn  to  be  patient, 
and  to  be  modest  in  our  expectations.  We  must  bear  in 
mind  that  temperance  reform  is  very  largely  a matter  of 
moral  and  social  evolution. 

Liquor  legislation  must  necessarily  follow  one  of  two 
general  policies.  It  may  aim  at  the  abolition  of  the  liquor 
traffic,  or  at  the  regulation  of  the  traffic.  These  two  poli- 
cies are  extreme  opposites  at  every  point  and  in  every 
feature.  The  object  of  one  is  to  kill,  that  of  the  other  is  to 
cure.  It  is  on  this  broad  question  of  general  policy  that 
the  people  are  divided  to-day. 

No  legislative  system  has  ever  been  more  extensively 
or  fairly  tested  than  that  of  prohibition.  During  the  last 
sixty  years  it  has  been  tried  on  the  State-wide  scale  in  many 
different  sections  of  the  country  and  under  the  most  diverse 
social  and  political  conditions,  the  periods  of  trial  ranging 
from  three  years  in  Nebraska  to  fifty-three  years  in  Ver- 
mont. By  its  record,  by  what  it  has  done  and  by  what  it 
has  not  done,  prohibition  must  be  judged.  On  every  page 
of  that  record,  from  beginning  to  end,  are  written  the 
words  failure,  folly,  farce.  Nowhere  and  at  no  time,  in 
all  its  history,  has  prohibition  accomplished  a single  one  of 
its  avowed  objects.  Nowhere  has  it  abolished  the  liquor 
traffic;  nowhere  has  it  prevented  the  consumption  of  liquor 
nor  lessened  the  evil  of  intemperance.  Neither  as  a State- 
wide system  nor  under  Local  Option  has  prohibition  ever 
made  the  slightest  contribution  toward  the  solution  of  the 
liquor  problem.  The  one  solitary  service  that  it  has  ren- 
dered to  society  is  that  of  furnishing  a warning  example 


no 


PROHIBITION. 


the  supreme  folly  of  attempting  to  legislate  virtue  into 
men’s  lives. 

There  could  be  no  stronger  evidence  of  the  failure  of 
prohibition  than  the  fact  that  seven  of  the  eight  States  that 
adopted  the  system  fifty  years  ago,  have  since  abandoned  it 
and  gone  back  to  the  policy  of  license  and  regulation.  The 
people  of  these~States-'adbpted  prohibition  in  good  faith. 
They  honestly  and  earnestly  desired  to  wipe  out  intemper- 
ance. They  realized  that  intemperance  was  directly  or  in- 
directly the  cause  of  much  crime,  poverty  and  disease; 
that  it  was  a financial  burden  on  the  State;  and  that  it 
was  a hindrance  to  material  prosperity  and  to  moral  prog- 
ress. They  thought  it  was  a better  policy  to  abolish  than 
to  license  and  regulate  a traffic  that  seemed  to  them  to 
be  the  root  and  source  of  this  evil.  Now,  to  claim  that 
prohibition  was  even  measurably  successful  in  these  States, 
that  it  accomplished  even  a little  good,  is  to  insult  the  in- 
telligence of  the  people  of  New  England.  No  sensible  per- 
son can  believe  that  these  seven  States  would  have  deliber- 
ately repudiated  a system  that  they  had  adopted  in  high 
hopes  and  with  high  moral  purpose,  if  they  had  found  that 
that  system  was  making  for  sobriety,  prosperity,  and  good 
citizenship. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  it  is  always  easier  to  secure  the 
enactment  than  the  repeal  of  laws  of  a reputed  moral  pur- 
pose, the  repudiation  of  prohibition  by  these  States  is  all 
the  more  significant.  The  only  conclusion  consistent  with 
reason  and  common  sense  is  that  the  people,  after  years 
of  bitter  experience,  found  that  they  had  built  on  false 
hopes,  and  that  conditions  were  not  only  no  better  but  far 
worse  under  prohibition  than  they  had  been  under  the  li- 
cense system.  It  is  also  very  significant  that  the  States 
that  were  swept  off  their  feet  by  the  prohibition  wave  fifty 
years  ago,  are  among  those  States  that  are  being  least 
affected  by  the  present  agitation.  And  even  IMaine,  which 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM. 


Ill 


is  the  only  one  of  these  States  that  has  retained  prohibi- 
tion all  these  years,  is  actually  showing  unmistakable  signs 
of  genuine  repentance.  It  is  conceded  on  all  sides  that  a 
decisive  verdict  against  prohibition  would  have  been  ren- 
dered at  the  last  State  election  in  Maine,  when  resubmis- 
sion was  a prominent  issue,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  fact 
that  it  was  a presidential  year.  Prohibition  is  generally 
least  popular  where  it  is  best  known. 

If  prohibition  really  prohibited,  the  fact  ought  to  be 
reflected  in  the  figures  of  the  United  States  Revenue  De- 
partment. But,  according  to  the  Government  reports,  the 
use  of  alcoholic  liquors  actually  increases  with  the  spread 
of  prohibition.  In  1893,  the  year  the  Anti-Saloon  League 
was  organized,  the  per  capita  consumption  of  malt  and 
spirituous  liquors  in  the  whole  country  was  16.6  and  1.46 
gallons  respectively.  In  1899,  when  only  six  million  people 
were  living  under  prohibitory  laws,  the  figures  were  15.8 
and  i.ii.  In  1907,  when  approximately  thirty-five  million 
people  were  living  in  “dry”  territory,  the  figures  had  risen 
to  the  high-water  mark,  22.0  and  1.58.  The  report  of 
1908  shows  a decrease  of  about  10  per  cent,  in  spirituous 
liquors  as  compared  with  1907,  while  the  consumption  of 
malt  liquors  was  about  the  same  for  both  years.  Thus  we 
are  confronted  with  the  remarkable  fact  that,  in  1908, 
when  the  prohibition  wave  had  reached  enormous  propor- 
tions and  was  wiping  out  saloons  at  the  rate  of  11,000  a 
year,  the  American  people  consumed  more  liquor  per  capita 
than  they  did  in  any  previous  year  since  1893,  the  year'' 
1907  alone  excepted. 

Now  let  us  turn  for  a moment  to  our  old  friend,  the 
State  of  Maine.  That  prohibition  has  been  a failure  and  a 
farce  in  that  State  is  a matter  of  common  knowledge.  No 
one  who  is  not  a blind  partisan  will  deny  this.  Four  years 
ago.  Governor  Cobb,  a sincere  prohibitionist  and  an  hon- 
est, outspoken  man,  declared,  in  his  inaugural  address. 


II2 


PROHIBITION. 


that  the  State  ought  to  be  ashamed  of  itself  to  have  a pro- 
hibitory law  on  its  books  and  to  make  that  law  a laughing 
stock  of  the  nation.  And  he  insisted  that,  as  a matter 
of  common  honesty,  the  law  ought  to  be  either  enforced 
or  repealed.  Recorder  Whelden,  of  Portland,  recently 
made  this  statement : “There  are  at  least  four  hundred 
men  and  women  who  are  brought  before  this  court  time 
and  again  for  intoxication.”  Think  of  it,  four  hundred 
habituals  in  a city  from  which  the  liquor  traffic  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  banished  sixty  years  ago ! During 
four  years,  up  to  January  i,  1907,  in  Portland,  liquors 
were  seized  on  seventy-five  streets  and  alleys  and  at  445 
different  places ; and  832  different  persons  were  brought 
into  court  for  violation  of  the  liquor  law. 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Fifty,  based  on  a 
most  thorough  and  extensive  investigation  of  conditions 
in  Maine,  tells  the  whole  story  of  the  miserable  failure  of 
prohibition  throughout  the  whole  State.  Every  one  that 
has  traveled  through  Maine  knows  that  there  is  not  a 
town  in  the  State  where  even  a stranger,  if  he  take  the 
trouble  to  make  inquiry,  can  not  get  all  the  liquor  he 
wishes,  such  as  it  is.  And  in  many  places  the  stranger  is 
waited  on  by  some  considerate  person  who  asks  him 
whether  he  would  not  like  “something.”  The  statistics 
relating  to  arrests  for  drunkenness  and  deaths  from  alco- 
holism in  Maine  all  tell  the  same  tale.  They  spell  the  word 
failure. 

In  response  to  the  loud  clamorings  of  the  Anti-Saloon 
League,  the  Legislature  of  Georgia  enacted  a prohibitorj' 
law  a couple  of  years  ago.  The  act  went  into  effect  Janu- 
ary I,  1908.  For  a short  time,  the  new  law  seemed  to 
have  a good  effect.  Judging  from  surface  indications,  it 
looked  as  if  prohibition  might  at  last  break  its  long  record 
of  failure  and  actually  stop  the  sale  of  liquor.  But,  again, 
it  was  all  a dream,  and  a very  short  dream,  too.  The 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM. 


113 

drinkers  adjusted  themselves  to  the  “dry”  system,  and  were 
soon  hobnobbing  as  openly  and  boldly  as  ever  with  the 
old  Demon.  Conditions  kept  going  from  bad  to  worse, 
and  before  the  law  had  been  on  the  statute  books  a year, 
it  was  clearly  evident  to  everybody  that  had  even  half  an 
eye  that  prohibition  in  Georgia  had  broken  down. 

Here  is  the  testimony  of  two  of  the  prohibition  leaders 
themselves.  Rev.  Dr.  Holderby,  of  Atlanta,  an  ardent  pro- 
hibitionist, said  last  winter;  “The  Legislature  is  afraid  to 
stand  by  the  very  law  which  it  enacted  twelve  months  ago. 
Atlanta  has  become  a laughing  stock  and  a stench  in  the 
nostrils  of  the  Almighty.”  This  confession  must  have  been 
very  humiliating  to  the  good  parson,  as  he  had  been  telling 
his  people  right  along  that  he  knew  it  to  be  a fact  that  the 
Almighty  was  on  the  side  of  prohibition.  Assistant  Su- 
perintendent Richards,  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  utters 
this  wail ; “Beer  is  sold  here  right  and  left,  and  I know  it. 
You  can  get  whisky,  too;  for  what  does  it  mean  when 
twenty-seven  carloads  of  beer  and  whisky  are  shipped 
here?”  Well,  Brother  Richards,  it  means,  in  the  first  place, 
that  there  are  a good  many  thirsty  people  in  Atlanta,  and, 
in  the  second  place,  that  your  prohibitory  law  is  a humbug. 
Other  leading  prohibitionists  speak  in  the  same  strain  as 
the  two  just  quoted.  Conditions  in  Atlanta  are  a sample 
of  those  that  obtain  all  over  the  State. 

Just  a word  about  prohibition  under  the  Local  Option 
system.  The  writer  is  very  familiar  with  the  working  of 
prohibition  in  a number  of  the  towns  on  east  end  of  Long 
Island,  and  from  his  own  observation  during  the  last  seven 
years  he  can  testify  to  the  fact  that  in  every  one  of  these 
“dry”  towns,  prohibition  has  been  a disgusting  farce  every 
time  it  has  been  tried.  In  the  writer’s  own  town  the  record 
of  prohibition  may  be  summed  up  in  the  admission  of  the 
local  Anti-Saloon  leader,  that  “anybody  can  get  all  the 
liquor  he  wants  in  this  town  under  either  license  or  no- 


PROHIBITION. 


1 14 

license.”  That  no-license  has  failed  to  accomplish  any  good 
on  Long  Island,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  at  the 
elections  last  spring  every  town  on  the  island  was  carried 
for  license  by  a decisive  majority.  The  Anti-Saloon  League 
made  the  fight  of  its  life,  but  it  was  of  no  use.  The  people 
knew  all  about  the  “blessings”  of  prohibition,  and  they  con- 
cluded that  they  had  had  enough.  The  prohibitionists  lost 
every  town  they  then  held,  including  conservative  old  East 
Hampton,  which  gave  a majority  for  license  for  the  first 
time  in  fifty  years. 

Many  and  various  are  the  reasons  why  prohibition  in 
this  country  has  proved  a failure.  The  following  considera- 
tions will  reveal  a few  of  the  more  general  reasons. 

Prohibition  is  an  attempt  to  deprive  men  of  what  they 
believe  to  be  an  inherent  right.  The  question  of  individual 
right  is  the  underlying  issue  in  this  whole  controversy. 
Majority  rule  is,  of  course,  a sound  political  principle,  but  it 
is  obvious  that  the  application  of  this  principle  must  be  con- 
fined within  reasonable  limits.  If  a majority  has  a right  to 
say  to  a minority : “You  shall  not  drink  beer,”  another  ma- 
jority has  the  right  to  say  to  another  minority;  “You  shall 
not  drink  tea.”  Now,  if  the  people  in  any  State  or  town 
should  take  it  into  their  heads  to  enact  a law  prohibiting 
the  use  of  tea,  what  a fearful  howl  would  go  up  from  the 
camp  of  the  W.  C.  T.  U.,  and  what  an  unenviable  job  the 
officers  would  have  in  attempting  to  enforce  such  a law ! 
“What,  deprive  us  of  our  right  to  serve  tea  at  our  mothers’ 
meetings  and  parlor  sociables ! Why,  it’s  an  outrage !” 
“Oh,  but,  good  ladies,  we,  the  majority,  made  up  as  you 
know  of  the  better  element,  have  thoroughly  investigated 
this  matter,  and  we  have  found  that  tea  is  very  injurious. 
In  fact  it’s  a poison.  Look  at  the  thousands  of  women 
that  have  gone  down  to  tea-topers’  graves ! Look  at  the 
army  of  innocent  little  children  that  have  been  left  mother- 
less,” etc.,  etc.  As  a matter  of  fact,  many  experienced 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM. 


115 

physicians  believe  that  tea  and  coffee  cause  quite  as  much 
trouble  in  the  world  as  alcohol.  The  “temperance”  people 
will  retort : “Yes ; but  there  is  a wide  difference  between 
beer  and  tea.”  Of  course  there  is,  and  that  is  just  why 
so  many  people  prefer  the  beer.  But  there  is  no  differ- 
ence between  the  right  to  drink  the  one  and  the  right  to 
drink  the  other.  Everywhere  and  always,  outside  of  Islam, 
while  drunkenness  has  been  condemned,  the  moderate  use 
of  alcoholic  beverages  has  been  a common  custom  and 
has  been  regarded  as  the  inherent  right  of  the  individual. 

The  use  of  alcoholic  liquors  is  and  has  always  been 
considered  not  only  legitimate  as  a beverage,  but  it  is 
consecrated  and  hallowed  in  the  most  solemn  and  weighty 
rite  of  the  Christian  Church.  Now  you  cannot,  by  a mere 
law,  eradicate  a sentiment  and  destroy  an  institution  that 
has  stood  for  ages,  and  that  is  so  deeply  rooted  in  our 
whole  social  life.  Prohibition  condemns  the  conscience, 
the  judgment  and  the  social  habits  of  countless  generations 
of  the  most  highly  civilized,  progressive _and  moral  peoples. 
Moreover,  prohibition  passes  condemnation  on  a great 
branch  of  industry  that  has  been  recognized  throughout 
all  ages  as  legitimate,  an  industry  in  which  some  of  the 
most  venerable  and  honored  religious  orders  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  have  been  and  are  to-day  engaged.  Prohibi- 
tion necessarily  fails  because  it  makes  no  discrimination 
between  use  and  abuse.  It  arbitrarily  makes  a legal  crime 
of  an  act  which  is  neither  wrong  in  itself  nor  contrary 
to  the  rights  and  interests  of  society.  Because  two  or  three 
men  use  liquors  to  excess,  prohibition  would  compel  a 
hundred  temperate  men  to  follow  the  rule  of  total  abstin- 
ence. One  man  is  lame,  and  therefore  all  his  neighbors 
must  use  crutches. 

Again,  prohibition  has  failed  because  it  is  wholly 
negative  and  destructive.  You  cannot  remove  an  effect 
until  you  remove  the  cause.  You  cannot  abolish  the  li- 


ii6 


PROHIBITION. 


quor  trafific  until  you  abolish  the  source  of  the  traffic.  It 
is  not  the  liquor  traffic  that  creates  the  demand  for  liquSfl 
it  is  the  demand  for  liquor  that  creates  the  traffic.  And 
just  so  long  as  the  demand  continues,  just  so  long  will 
the  supply  of  liquor  be  forthcoming  in  one  way  or  another. 
The  attempt  to  abolish  the  liquor  traffic  by  a prohibitory 
law  is  as  futile  as  would  be  the  attempt  to  dry  up  a river 
by  building  a dam.  Prohibitionists  seem  to  imagine  that 
they  are  dealing  only  with  the  comparatively  few  liquor 
dealers ; whereas  they  are  dealing  with  the  vast  multitude 
of  men  that  are  determined  to  use  liquor.  They  tell  us 
that  the  saloon  is  a curse.  Well,  be  that  as  it  may,  the 
practical  question  is,  what  blessing  does  prohibition  furnish 
as  a substitute?  Absolutely  none,  unless  it  be  the  W.  C. 
T.  U.  mothers’  meeting  and  the  weekly  prayer  meeting. 
These  institutions,  excellent  as  they  are  in  their  place, 
are  hardly  adapted  to  satisfy  the  social  needs  of  the  masses. 
Students  of  social  science,  men  who  have  spent  years  in 
observing  and  studying  the  saloon  and  the  saloon  constitu- 
ency, whatever  views  they  may  hold  as  to  the  character 
of  this  institution  as  it  now  exists,  agree  unanimously  on 
the  following  three  propositions : 

1.  That  the  saloon  fills  a legitimate  social  need. 

2.  That  it  is  practically  the  only  institution  that  does 
fill  this  need. 

3.  That  it  is  worse  than  useless  to  attempt  to  abolish 
the  saloon  until  some  suitable  institution  be  established 

s a substitute. 

The  lives  of  the  great  majority  are  dull  and  monoton- 
ous. The  proportion  of  pleasure  and  leisure  is  meager  and 
insufficient.  This  is  as  true  of  rural  as  of  urban  life, 
but  it  is  too  largely  true  of  the  masses  everywhere.  And^_ 
whatever  will  lighten  and  brighten  and  cheer  their  lives 
without  too  great  a sacrifice  will  not  be  readily  surrendered 
in  the  interest  of  a questionable  moral  reform.  If  men 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM. 


117 

can  not  get  this  pleasure  openly,  they  will  get  it  surreptiti- 
ously, and  even  if  it  could  be  taken  from  them  by  force, 
they  would  resort  to  substitutes  which,  in  all  likelihood, 
would  be  far  more  injurious.  The  saloon  exists  because 
there  is  a demand  for  it.  A prohibitory  law  certainly  does 
not  remove  this  demand.  It  does  not  eradicate  the  social 
instinct  and  the  desire  to  drink  that  lie  back  of  the  demand. 
In  short,  it  does  not  destroy  a single  one  of  the  elements 
that  constitute  the  life  and  power  of  the  saloon.  It  does 
not  introduce  into  the  community  a single  element  that  acts 
as  an  antidote  for  the  saloon.  The  whole  root  of  this 
institution  remains  in  the  community  intact,  undisturbed 
and  vigorous.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  inevitable 
that  the  saloon,  in  one  form  or  another,  will  continue  to 
serve  its  customers. 

Law  enforcement  is,  in  the  long  run,  dependent  on 
public  sentiment.  Moreover,  public  sentiment,  in  order 
to  make  itself  felt,  must  be  active,  alert  and  persistent.  A 
mere  vague  wish  that  the  law  be  enforced  is  not  enough. 
The  wish  must  be  followed  up  by  well-organized  effort. 
When  you  find  a community  in  which  the  government  is 
ring-ridden  and  corrupt,  it  does  not  mean  that  the  public 
sentiment  is  in  favor  of  such  conditions.  It  means  that 
public  sentiment  is  impotent  because  it  is  either  inactive 
or  unorganized.  Thus  it  occurs  that  small  minorities  can 
defy,  and  are  to-day  defying,  the  will  of  large  majorities. 

Just  how  much  of  this  active  and  determined  public 
sentiment  is  required  to  insure  strict  law  enforcement,  de- 
pends largely  on  the  character  of  the  law.  A stringent, 
harsh  sumptuary  law,  like  prohibition,  could  not  be  enforced 
unless  it  had  on  its  side  an  almost  unanimous  public  senti- 
ment, vigilant  and  well-organized.  Such  a law  has  all 
the  odds  against  it.  It  has  an  uphill  job  from  the  outset. 
Public  officials  are,  as  a rule,  far  more  inclined  to  heed 
and  yield  to  the  voice  of  protest  against  the  enforcement 


ii8 


PROHIBITION. 


of  a law  of  this  kind  than  they  are  to  make  an  extraordinary 
effort  to  enforce  the  law  in  obedience  to  the  demand  of 
the  other  side.  Under  State-wide  prohibition,  there  are 
many  communities  where  the  majority  sentiment  is  strongly 
opposed  to  enforcement,  and  even  prohibitionists  admit 
that,  in  such  communities,  the  law  becomes  a mere  farce. 

But  even  under  the  Local  Option  system,  which  is 
supposed  to  insure  local  majority  rule,  prohibition,  in  a 
great  many  instances,  does  not  actully  represent  a majority 
of  the  electorate.  And  the  reason  is  that  at  a local  option 
election,  a considerable  proportion  of  the  voters  do  not 
mark  the  excise  ballot  at  all.  In  the  writer’s  own  town, 
the  vote  on  the  license  question,  during  the  last  fifteen 
years,  has  always  fallen  from  12  to  20  per  cent,  short 
of  the  total  vote  cast  on  other  questions  and  for  candidates 
for  offices.  During  the  period  in  question  the  town  has 
been  carried  for  no-license  a number  of  times,  and  in 
every  instance  by  a minority  of  the  total  vote  polled.  IMore- 
over,  the  public  sentiment  in  favor  of  prohibition  is  not 
only  not  strong  enough  in  quantity  to  enforce  the  law, 
but  even  what  there  is  of  it  is  not  of  the  right  quality. 

The  great  majority  of  those  that  vote  for  prohibition 
are  full  of  zeal  and  enthusiasm  up  to  the  time  of  the  elec- 
tion ; but  after  election  their  enthusiasm  dies  out,  and  they 
leave  it  to  others  to  attend  to  the  matter  of  law  enforce- 
ment. They  think  that  in  merely  casting  their  ballots 
for  prohibition  they  have  done  their  full  duty  and  saved 
the  country.  The  writer  has  watched  the  prohibitionists 
in  his  town  for  seven  years,  and  he  can  testify  that  not 
two  per  cent,  of  the  men  that  vote  for  no-license  ever  lift 
a finger  or  contribute  one  cent  to  have  the  law  enforced 
under  either  system. 

The  prohibition  public  sentiment  is  of  that  cheap,  shal- 
low, emotional  variety  that  exhausts  itself  in  all  manner 
of  hysterical  performances  during  the  campaign.  Over 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM. 


1 19 

against  the  inherent  weakness  of  this  prohibition  sentiment 
is  the  public  sentiment  opposed  to  the  enactment  and  to 
the  enforcement  of  the  prohibitory  law.  This  sentiment 
is  of  a very  different  kind  from  the  other.  There  is  noth- 
ing frenzied  nor  hysterical  about  it.  But  it  is  determined, 
active  and  persistent.  It  knows  what  it  wishes  and,  what 
is  more  to  the  point,  it  knows  how  to  get  what  it  wishes. 
It  doesn’t  exhaust  itself  before  election  nor  grow  indiffer- 
ent after  election.  Indeed,  as  soon  as  the  town  goes  “dry,” 
this  anti-prohibition  sentiment  begins  to  arouse  itself  and 
warm  up. 

A man  in  a “dry”  town  wishes  a drink,  and  he  knows 
where  he  can  get  it.  That  man  is  far  more  interested  in 
getting  his  drink  than  his  prohibition  neighbor  is  in  pre- 
venting him  from  getting  it.  And  when  you  multiply 
this  one  drinker  by  a number  representing  half  or  more 
of  the  male  inhabitants  of  the  community,  you  have  an  idea 
of  the  relative  strength  of  the  two  kinds  of  public  senti- 
ment, and,  if  you  have  any  power  of  imagination,  you 
know  why  prohibition  does  not  prohibit.  There  is  said 
to  be  a good  deal  of  the  mule  about  human  nature,  and 
a prohibitory  law  is  beautifully  adapted  to  bring  out  the 
mule  quality.  People  resent  the  idea  of  being  held  up 
by^a  lot  of  hysterical  women  and  meddlesome  men  who 
conceive"  it  to  be  their  right  and  duty  to  regulate  the 
personal  habits  of  their  neighbors. 

Prohibition  has  not  only  failed  to  accomplish  its  avowed 
object,  but  it  has  been  the  greatest  obstacle  to  true  tem- 
perance reform  in  this  country  during  the  last  fifty  years. 
Other  nations  are  far  ahead  of  us  in  the  way  in  which 
they  handle  the  drink  question,  and  one  reason  is  that 
they  have  not  been  so  much  disturbed  by  “temperance 
waves.”  Prohibition  attempts  to  do  that  which  is  impos- 
sible and  prevents  the  doing  of  that  which  is  possible.  If 
the  liquor  problem,  in  its  legislative  aspects,  is  ever  going 
to  be  solved,  the  solution  must  be  found  along  the  line 


120 


PROHIBITION. 


of  regulation,  and  the  sooner  we  set  our  feet  on  the  right 
path  the  sooner  we  shall  reach  the  desired  end. 

Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  every  State  and 
local  community  in  which  prohibition  now  obtains  will 
ultimately  have  to  return  to  the  policy  of  regulation,  and 
just  so  long  as  the  prohibitory  law  remains  on  the  statute 
books,  just  so  long  will  the  day  of  reformation  be  deferred. 
Prohibition  is  like  the  quack  doctor  who  cannot  cure  the 
patient  himself  and  will  not  allow  anybody  else  to  take 
the  case.  The  present  hysterical  crusade  is  itself  an  obstacle 
to  reform  even  in  places  where  the  license  law  obtains. 
It  is  a drain  on  the  moral  energy  of  the  community.  It 
creates  contention,  confusion  and  bitter  strife.  It  attracts 
and  leads  astray  many  well-intentioned  but  unthinking 
people,  whose  interest  in  moral  reform  and  whose  zeal  and 
enthusiasm  would,  if  wisely  directed,  be  of  great  value 
to  the  community.  These  people  become  infatuated  with 
a blind  faith  in  the  power  of  prohibition  to  regenerate 
society,  and  they  will  listen  to  nothing  else.  If  you  suggest 
to  them  some  proposition  of  reasonable  reform,  they  fly 
ofif  into  a rage  and  denounce  you  as  a traitor  to  the  country 
and  an  enemy  of  religion. 

Prohibitionists  not  only  refuse  to  support,  but  actively 
and  bitterly  fight  against,  every  plan  of  excise  reform  that 
does  not  go  to  their  extreme.  It  must  be  abolition  or 
nothing;  their  motto  is  rule  or  ruin.  In  their  blind  zeal 
they  actually  rejoice  in  iniquity.  The  disreputable  saloon 
is  far  more  to  their  liking  than  the  decent  saloon,  for  the 
more  disreputable  the  saloon  the  more  ammunition  for 
the  campaign.  If  all  saloons  were  made  decent  and  or- 
derly, the  bottom  would  soon  drop  out  of  the  prohibition 
movement.  Tell  a prohibitionist  that  such  and  such  a 
saloon  is  certainly  a respectable  place,  and  you  arouse  his 
fiercest  anger.  He  would  rather  hear  that  a murder  had 
been  committed  in  one  of  the  “hell  holes.”  In  his  esti- 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM. 


I2I 


mation  the  respectable  saloon  is  the  very  worst  kind,  as 
it  deceives  and  beguiles  the  unwary  youth  to  his  destruction. 

The  real  character  of  the  prohibition  movement  is  thus 
seen  in  the  way  it  reacts  on  the  prohibitionists  themselves. 
They  throw  truth  and  reason  and  experience  to  the  winds, 
and  often  resort  to  the  most  contemptible  and  disgusting 
methods  to  gain  their  end.  Some  time  ago,  a traveling 
salesman  who  lives  in  a town  in  the  Middle  West,  was 
returning  home  from  a trip.  On  arriving  at  his  station, 
he  noticed  that  the  streets  were  filled  with  people.  Making 
his  way  through  the  crowd,  he  discovered  that  a no-license 
parade  was  in  progress.  It  was  a long  procession,  made 
up  of  women  and  children.  They  carried  banners  and  flags, 
and  sang  “temperance”  songs.  Every  child  wore  a badge 
on  which  were  the  words,  “Vote  for  us ; we  cannot.”  At 
the  end  of  the  procession  were  several  files  of  children 
dressed  in  rags  and  tatters.  One  of  these,  a boy,  carried 
a huge  banner.  Printed  on  the  banner,  in  large  letters, 
were  these  words : “My  father  is  a drunkard.”  Our 
friend  the  salesman  looked  at  the  banner  and  then  hap- 
pened to  glance  at  the  boy.  Suddenly  an  expression  of 
amazement  came  over  his  face,  and,  breaking  through  the 
crowd,  he  ran  up  to  the  ragged  banner  bearer,  and  grasp- 
ing him  by  the  arm,  exclaimed : “My  God,  what  are  you 
doing  here,  my  boy?”  It  was  this  gentleman’s  own  son 
that  had  been  dressed  up  in  these  rags  by  the  good  “tem- 
perance” women  and  sent  out  to  carry  this  banner  of  shame 
and  humiliation  through  the  streets.  This  exhibition  is  a 
sample  of  the  methods  employed  by  prohibitionists  to  gain 
converts  to  their  cause. 

If  these  children  really  had  drunken  fathers,  it  was 
unspeakably  brutal  and  cruel  to  make  such  a spectacle 
of  them  before  the  public.  If  their  fathers  were  not  drunk- 
ards, the  whole  thing  was  a cheap,  theatrical  performance 
deliberately  intended  to  create  a false  impression  on  the 


122 


PROHIBITION. 


public  mind.  And  all  this  fraud  and  vulgarity  in  the  name 
of  temperance  and  religion ! 

Here  is  another  example  of  the  intemperate  “temper- 
ance” of  prohibitionists : A professor  in  one  of  our  uni- 
versities accepted  an  invitation  to  speak  at  a “temperance” 
rally  in  a church.  In  the  course  of  his  remark  he  referred 
to  the  miracle  at  Cana,  and  expressed  himself  thus:  “I 
have  given  this  matter  profound  thought,  and  I wish  to 
say  to  you  that  I have  reached  the  conclusion  that  when 
Christ  turned  that  water  into  wine,  he  did  what  was 
wrong.”  Blind  passion,  wild  fanaticism  and  bitter  intol- 
erance are  the  chief  characteristics  of  the  whole  prohibition 
movement.  It  must  be  apparent  to  every  sane  and  rea- 
sonable mind  that  the  sooner  this  miscalled  “temperance” 
crusade  is  buried  out  of  sight  and  forgotten,  the  sooner 
the  way  will  be  cleared  for  genuine  temperance  reform. 

Finally,  prohibition  must  be  condemned,  not  only  be- 
cause it  has  failed  to  accomplish  any  good,  not  only  be- 
cause it  blocks  the  way  to  real  reform,  but  because  it  is 
itself  the  source  of  many  social  and  political  evils.  These 
evils  are  briefly  summarized  as  follows : 

I.  Prohibitory  legislation  has  never  succeeded  in 
abolishing  the  liquor  traffic,  but  it  has  succeeded  in  de- 
grading and  demoralizing  the  traffic  by  driving  it  into  secret 
places.  The  liquor  laws  in  most  of  the  States  prohibit  the 
use  of  shades  in  saloon  windows  and  screens  in  front  of 
the  bar.  This  wise  provision  is  based  on  the  common  ex- 
perience that  the  liquor  business  is  of  such  a nature  that 
it  is  far  more  likely  to  do  harm  when  it  is  carried  on 
under  cover  than  when  it  is  open  and  aboveboard.  Now 
prohibition  forces  the  liquor  traffic  to  secrete  itself,  not 
merely  behind  a screen,  but  behind  a barricaded  door. 
The  door  is  quickly  opened  for  those  that  know  the  pass- 
word, but  shut  against  the  officers  of  the  law.  The  only 
practical  question  that  confronts  us  is  whether  we  shall 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM. 


123 


permit  the  liquor  traffic  to  be  carried  on  openly  under  the 
supervision  and  control  of  the  law,  or  whether  we  shall 
drive  it  into  places  where  the  arm  of  the  law  cannot  reach 
it.  License  means  the  open  barroom,  prohibition  means 
the  “speak  easy.”  Which  of  the  two  kinds  is  the  more 
likely  to  harbor  evils  and  encourage  intemperance. 

2.  If  there  is  any  one  business  more  than  another 
that,  in  the  interest  of  the  public,  ought  to  be  in  the  hands 
of  men  with  conscience  and  moral  principle,  it  is  the  liq- 
uor business.  A proper  kind  of  license  law  can  do  con- 
siderable toward  improving  the  personnel  of  the  trade.  Pro- 
hibition, on  the  other  hand,  discourages  decent,  honorable 
men  from  engaging  in  the  business,  and  thus  throws  it 
into  the  hands  of  the  most  unscrupulous  and  irresponsible 
men  in  the  community.  The  only  qualification  required  to 
do  business  under  prohibition  is  the  ability  to  beat  the  law 
without  getting  caught.  A couple  of  years  ago,  in  a cer- 
tain town  on  Long  Island,  one  of  the  best  hotels  had  to 
close  its  doors  shortly  after  the  “dry”  law  went  into  effect. 
The  proprietor  of  this  hotel  was  one  of  the  most  honored 
men  in  the  community.  Prohibition  did  succeed  in  closing 
this  man’s  bar  and  driving  him  out  of  the  hotel  business 
as  well,  and  it  closed  other  decent  places.  But  what  was 
the  result?  Why,  within  two  years  between  fifty  and 
sixty  “kitchen  saloons”  were  established  in  this  same  town. 
It  is  a well-known  fact  that  most  of  the  men  that  run  these 
“speak  easies”  in  a “dry”  town  are  thoroughly  satisfied 
with  prohibition.  A license  law  would  put  them  out  of 
business.  Again,  the  only  question  is ; shall  we  encourage 
and  protect  the  decent  liquor  dealer,  or  shall  we  encourage 
the  other  kind?  One  kind  or  the  other  we  are  absolutely 
sure  to  have. 

3.  Prohibition  has  a bad  effect  also  on  the  drinker. 
It  tends  to  discourage  the  use  of  the  lighter  alcoholic  bever- 
ages and  to  encourage  the  excessive  use  of  the  stronger 


124 


PROHIBITION. 


liquors.  This  tendency  is  especially  pronounced  wherever 
the  attempt  is  made  to  enforce  the  law  rigorously.  De- 
terioration in  the  quality  of  liquor  is  another  one  of  the 
“blessings”  introduced  by  prohibition.  The  men  who  run 
the  “speak  easies”  often  make  their  own  “whisky,”  and 
you  can  imagine  the  nature  of  the  “blend.”  A few  years 
ago,  when  the  town  in  which  the  writer  lives  was  “dry,” 
a confirmed  inebriate  who  lived  in  adjoining  “wet”  town 
got  in  the  habit  of  visiting  this  “dry”  town  about  once  a 
fortnight.  He  was  always  sober  when  he  arrived  and 
drunk  when  he  left.  He  was  once  asked  why  he  came 
from  a “wet”  town  to  a “dry”  town  to  get  liquor,  and 
his  answer  was : “Because  I can  get  a quicker  and  cheaper 

jag  on  in  Riverhead  than  I can  in .”  This  is  the  way 

prohibition  reforms  the  drunkard ! It  is  often  claimed  that 
while  prohibition  does  not  altogether  prohibit,  it  does  suc- 
ceed in  reducing  the  consumption  of  liquor.  This  claim 
is  not  based  on  fact.  But  even  if  it  be  true  that  less  liquor 
is  drunk  in  a given  community  under  prohibition  than 
under  the  license  system,  the  all-important  question,  from 
the  point  of  view  of  temperance  reform  is,  what  class  of 
people  are  thus  affected.  Who  are  the  men  that  either 
cannot  get  anything  to  drink  or  cannot  get  as  much  as  they 
would  under  license?  Now,  everybody  who  is  not  living 
in  a land  of  dreams,  knows  perfectly  well  that  the  very 
men  in  every  community  who  most  need  reforming  are 
the  ones  that  are  least  inconvenienced  by  the  prohibitory 
law.  They  are  the  first  ones  to  learn  the  location  of  every 
“speak  easy”  in  the  place.  But,  if  prohibition  cannot  re- 
form this  class,  may  it  not  at  least  keep  temptation  out  of 
the  way  of  the  young?  Now,  the  truth  is  that  all  this 
talk  about  “protecting  our  boys”  is  sheer  twaddle.  The 
protection  is  a myth.  Prohibition  really  creates  the  most 
dangerous  kind  of  temptation — that  which  is  hidden,  but 
known.  Every  young  man  that  is  at  all  liable  to  be  led 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM. 


125 


astray  under  the  license  system,  is  far  more  liable  to  go 
astray  under  a system  that  encourages  secret  drinking. 
Who  wouldn’t  rather  have  his  son  go  into  an  open  saloon 
and  get  a glass  of  beer  than  to  have  him  join  his  com- 
panions in  some  back-room  resort?  If  there  is  any  class 
of  young  men  in  the  community  that  need  the  protection 
of  the  law,  they  are  certainly  not  the  ones  that  frequent 
the  W.  C.  T.  U.  prayer  meeting  when  the  town  is  “dry.” 
While  the  good  women  are  praying  and  thanking  the  Lord 
for  the  great  blessing  of  prohibition,  these  young  fellows 
are  probably  “protecting”  themselves  in  the  “club”  room 
at  the  far  end  of  some  alley. 

4.  Prohibition  creates  widespread  and  habitual  law- 
breaking. Consider  the  number  of  crimes  that  are  com- 
mitted every  hour  of  the  day  in  a “dry”  State.  And  con- 
sider the  bad  moral  effect  of  this  habit  of  law-breaking 
on  the  civic  life.  It  creates  the  spirit  of  lawlessness.  It 
tends  to  weaken  and  break  down  that  respect  for  the 
principle  of  law  and  order  which  is  so  essential  to  good 
citizenship.  The  following  story  shows  how  even  good 
men  are  unconsciously  affected  by  this  baneful  influence; 
Some  years  ago  a clergyman  went  to  a certain  summer 
resort  in  New  Hampshire  to  spend  his  vacation.  On  ar- 
riving in  the  town,  he  went  to  the  leading  hotel.  While 
waiting  in  the  office  for  the  supper  bell,  he  happened  to 
open  a door,  and  found,  in  the  next  room,  a well-appointed 
bar.  The  proprietor  was  in  this  room,  and  the  clergy- 
man, pointing  to  the  bar,  said:  “Why,  Mr.  , how  is 

this?”  “How’s  what?”  answered  the  proprietor.  “Why, 
you  have  a bar  here,  and  you  are  evidently  open  for  busi- 
ness.” The  hotel  man  looked  puzzled  and  said : “Of 
course  I have  a bar.  Couldn’t  you  get  what  you  wanted?” 
“Oh,  I didn’t  wish  anything,”  answered  the  minister,  “but 
I wondered  how  you  could  run  an  open  bar  in  a prohibition 
town.”  The  genial  host  felt  relieved  when  he  found  that 


126 


PROHIBITION. 


his  guest  was  not  complaining  about  the  service.  “Well, 
well,”  he  said,  “I  didn’t  understand  what  you  meant.  Why, 
that’s  easy.  I’ll  tell  you  how  we  work  it  up  here.  You 
see,  I was  high  sheriff  of  this  county  last  term,  and,  while 
I dislike  to  blow  my  own  horn,  I want  to  tell  you  that  I 
did  what  very  few  men  in  this  county  would  have  done. 
Every  three  months  I raided  my  own  bar  and  had  myself 
fined.”  As  he  finished  this  sentence,  there  was  a look  of 
genuine  pride  in  the  ex-sheriff’s  face.  He  seemed  to  be 
blissfully  unconscious  that  there  was  anything  wrong  about 
violating  the  law.  This  story  was  told  to  the  writer  by 
the  Rev.  Dr.  E.  A.  Wasson,  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  who  was 
himself  the  clergyman  that  had  this  conversation  with  the 
hotel  man. 

Here  is  another  story  which  shows  the  effect  of  prohi- 
bition as  a breeder  of  rank  hypocrisy.  About  four  years 
ago,  shortly  after  a certain  town  on  Long  Island  went 
“dry,”  a hotel  keeper  in  this  town  received  a letter  from  a 
wholesale  whisky  concern  in  Kentucky,  reading  something 
like  this : “Will  you  kindly  send  us  the  names  of  any  persons 
in  your  town  who,  you  think,  might  be  likely  to  purchase 
wet  goods.  We  have  a very  fine  brand  of  whisky  (naming 
the  brand)  that  we  should  like  to  introduce  in  your  town. 
We  shall  be  glad  to  extend  to  you  the  usual  courtesy  of 
ten  per  cent,  commission  on  all  sales  that  we  may  make 
through  the  list  you  send  us.”  Well,  the  hotel  man  thought 
he  would  have  a little  fun,  and  so  he  made  a list  of  about 
thirty-five  of  the  most  rabid  prohibitionists  in  the  place, 
and  sent  the  list  to  the  whisky  firm.  He  thought  it  would 
be  a fine  joke  on  the  prohibitionists  to  have  them  deluged 
with  whisky  circulars.  And  it  turned  out  to  be  a better 
joke  than  he  thought.  For,  at  the  end  of  three  months, 
he  received  a letter  from  the  whisky  people  thanking  him 
for  what  he  had  done,  and  inclosing  a check  for  twenty- 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM. 


127 


seven  dollars  commission.  This  story  throws  light  on  the 
curious  circumstance  already  referred  to,  that,  as  the  pro- 
hibition movement  spreads,  the  consumption  of  liquor 
increases. 

Ex-President  Eliot,  of  Harvard,  sums  up  the  whole 
case  against  prohibition  in  its  effects  on  the  social  and 
political  life.  He  says:  “The  efforts  to  enforce  it  (pro- 
hibition) during  forty  years  past  have  had  some  unlooked- 
for  effects  on  public  respect  for  courts,  judicial  procedure, 
oaths  and  law,  legislature  and  public  servants.  The  public 
have  seen  law  defied,  a whole  generation  of  habitual  law- 
breakers, schooled  in  evasion  and  shamelessness,  courts 
ineffective  through  fluctuations  of  policy,  delays,  perjuries, 
negligences  and  other  miscarriages  of  justice,  officers  of 
the  law  double-faced  and  mercenary,  legislators  timid  and 
insincere.”  Such  is  the  character  and  the  record  of  pro- 
hibition. 

The  writer  of  the  present  article  does  not  wish  to 
minimize  the  evils  and  abuses  that  have  been  allowed  to 
grow  up  and  intrench  themselves  in  the  liquor  traffic.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  some  liquor  dealers  have  condoned  and 
encouraged  conditions  repugnant  to  moral  sense  and  de- 
structive of  decency  and  good  order.  They  have  encour- 
aged other  vices,  such  as  gambling  and  the  social  evil. 
They  have  catered  and  pandered  to  the  worst  passions 
and  impulses  in  human  nature.  And  they  have  done  all 
this  in  a cold-blooded  desire  to  increase  the  volume  of  their 
business.  But  the  number  of  such  dealers  is  comparatively 
small.  At  the  same  time,  one  such  man  in  the  business 
is  one  too  many.  Liquor  laws  should  be  so  framed,  that 
it  would  be  extremely  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  for  men 
of  this  stamp  to  get  into  the  liquor  business,  and  the  law 
should  also  provide  a simple  and  easy  way  to  drive  out 
those  that  have  gotten  in. 

The  limits  of  this  article  preclude  a lengthy  discussion 


128 


PROHIBITION. 


of  the  question  of  a legislative  remedy  for  the  evils  con- 
nected wtih  the  liquor  traffic.  But  it  will  not  be  amiss  to 
suggest  a plan  of  regulation  which,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  writer,  would  be  a step  in  the  right  direction. 

In  formulating  liquor  legislation,  we  should  be  guided 
by  two  fundamental  principles.  The  first  is  practicability. 
The  question  to  be  determined  at  the  outset  is,  what  kind 
of  excise  law,  under  given  conditions,  with  men  as  they 
are  in  their  individual  and  social  life,  and  with  political 
standards  as  they  are,  will  effect  the  best  results.  The 
trouble  with  much  of  our  legislation  is  that  it  has  ignored 
limitations  imposed  by  actual  conditions.  Legislation  is 
not  the  expression  of  ideals  nor  of  moral  yearnings.  The 
law  should  represent  the  nearest  approach  to  the  ideal  that 
present  conditions  will  admit  of.  x\nother  equally  im- 
portant consideration,  following  on  this  is  that  the  same 
legislation  is  not  adapted  for  all  communities.  Hence,  li- 
quor legislation  should  provide  for  a very  large  measure 
of  home  rule.  But  there  is  a right  and  wrong  kind  of 
home  rule.  The  so-called  local  option  system  that  now 
obtains  in  many  of  the  States,  is  the  wrong  kind.  It  is 
unsound  in  principle  and  demoralizing  in  its  effects.  It 
is  at  variance  with  the  general  policy  of  regulation.  It 
is  part  of  the  policy  and  program  of  prohibition.  It  is 
an  instrument  placed  in  the  hands  of  prohibitionists  to 
enable  them  to  gain  their  end  little  by  little.  Now,  all 
the  features  and  provisions  of  a State  liquor  law  should 
be  mutually  consistent  and  harmonious.  All  parts  of  the 
law  should  have  the  same  general  intent  and  con- 
form with  the  same  general  policy.  But,  under  the  present 
local  option  system,  the  State  is  following  two  opposite 
policies  at  the  same  time.  This  kind  of  local  option  gives 
the  local  community  too  much  power  and  too  little  power. 
The  people  have  no  power  to  say  who  shall  receive  licenses 
and  what  moral  and  other  qualifications  shall  be  required^ 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORIM. 


129 


They  have  no  power  to  determine  the  question  of  prohibited 
days  and  hours ; no  power  to  determine  the  amount  of  the 
license  fee,  nor  to  set  a limit  on  the  number  of  licenses  to 
be  issued.  There  is  no  option  on  any  of  these  matters  of 
practical  administration  that  properly  come  within  the  scope 
of  local  self-government.  The  community  has  option  on 
only  one  question — whether  the  liquor  traffic  shall  be  legal- 
ized or  prohibited.  This  local  option  scheme  reverses  the 
true  order  of  political  administration.  It  withholds  from 
the  local  community  those  minor  but  important  powers 
that  the  people  in  the  local  community  are  in  the  best 
position  to  exercise  wisely,  while  it  confers  upon  the  local 
community  that  supreme  power  of  life  or  death  over  the 
liquor  traffic  which  ought  to  be  reserved  in  the  hands  of 
the  State.  Under  this  system  the  liquor  dealers  and  the 
public  are  in  a constant  state  of  uncertainty  as  to  the 
fundamental  rights  of  property  and  of  personal  liberty, 
local  option  election,  there  is  the  possibility  of  a complete 
revolution  of  policy.  To-day  the  liquor  business  is  just 
as  legitimate  as  any  other  business ; to-morrow,  it  may 
be  under  the  ban  of  the  law.  The  question  is  never  settled. 
Neither  side  ever  wins  a permanent  victory.  The  State 
alone  should  settle  this  all-important  question  of  the  legality 
of  the  liquor  traffic  A question  like  this,  involving  the 
fundamental  question  of  regulation  or  abolition.  At  every 
should  not  be  left  to  the  decision  of  a majority  vote  at 
a local  election.  On  the  other  hand,  the  State,  after  estab- 
lishing the  legality  of  the  liquor  business  everywhere  within 
its  borders,  should  grant  to  the  local  community  the  fullest 
freedom  and  power  in  the  matter  of  regulation. 

Starting  with  this  general  principle  of  State  rule  in 
matters  of  general  policy  and  home  rule  in  matters  of 
local  administration,  the  following  is  a rough  outline  oi 
the  plan  of  regulation  that  the  writer  has  in  mind  as  a 
substitute  for  the  present  local  option  system. 


130 


PROHIBITION. 


That  the  people  in  each  local  community  (the  township 
is  probably  the  best  unit)  be  empowered  to  elect  their  own 
Board  of  Excise  Commissioners,  twelve  in  number,  to 
serve  for  a term  of  say  two  years.  This  Board  should  have 
power  to  determine  the  amount  of  the  license  fee  (within 
maximum  and  minimum  limits  fixed  by  the  State)  ; to 
determine  how  many  licenses  should  be  issued  (within 
maximum  and  minimum  limits  fixed  by  the  State)  ; to 
determine  the  question  of  prohibited  days  and  hours,  and 
all  other  questions  of  a purely  local  nature.  The  Board 
should  have  sole  power  to  grant  and  revoke  licenses,  sub- 
ject to  certain  rules  of  procedure.  The  applicant  should 
be  required  to  present  to  the  Board  a certificate  of  good 
moral  character,  signed  by  twelve  reputable  persons,  who 
should  be  property  owners  and  resident  of  the  community. 
The  Board  should  be  required  to  hold  a public  hearing  on 
all  applications  for  license,  and  an  opportunity  be  given 
to  remonstrants,  should  there  be  any,  to  present  their  ob- 
jections. After  this  hearing,  the  Board  should  have  full 
discretionary  power  by  a majority  vote  to  grant  or  refuse 
any  application.  And  there  should  be  no  appeal  from 
their  decision.  This  power  to  grant  licenses  is  the  most 
important  of  all.  It  is  the  key  to  the  whole  situation. 
And  this  key  should  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  people 
most  nearly  afifected.  If  we  can  prevent  unfit  persons 
from  getting  into  the  liquor  business,  we  have,  at  the  veiy* 
outset,  solved  nine-tenths  of  the  problem  of  regulation. 
The  trouble  now  is  that  almost  anybody  that  has  the  price, 
whether  he  is  morally  fit  or  not,  can  get  a license  and 
start  up  a saloon.  The  law  may  require  that  the  licensee 
be  a person  of  good  moral  character,  but  that  requirement 
amounts  to  simply  nothing  at  all  unless  some  person  or 
persons  be  empowered  to  determine  in  each  case  the  ques- 
tion of  moral  fitness.  And  who  is  better  qualified  to  exer- 
cise this  power  than  twelve  men  elected  by  and  responsible 


OBSTACLE  TO  REFORM.  131 

to  the  people  of  the  community?  The  Board  should  also 
possess  the  sole  power  to  revoke  licenses.  On  the  com- 
plaint of  any  citizen  that  a certain  liquor  dealer  was  violat- 
ing the  law  or  that  he  was  maintaining  a nuisance  of  any 
kind,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  Board  to  hold  a public 
trial  of  the  matter,  summon  and  swear  witnesses,  and  give 
the  accused  person  an  opportunity  to  defend  himself. 
After  hearing  all  the  evidence,  the  Board  should  have  power 
by  a two-thirds  vote  to  dismiss  the  case  or  suspend  or 
revoke  the  license.  And  there  should  be  no  appeal  from 
their  decision. 

Of  course  it  will  be  objected  that  this  plan  places  too 
much  power  in  the  hands  of  the  Excise  Board.  Well,  if 
you  give  men  in  this  position  so  little  power  that  they 
could  not  possibly  do  any  harm,  you  make  it  impossible 
for  them  to  do  any  good.  There  is  not  the  renioted  likeli- 
hood that  such  a Board,  elected  by  the  people,  could  be 
unduly  influenced  to  grant  a license  to  a man  of  known 
unfitness  or  to  drive  a decent,  law-abiding  liquor  dealer 
out  of  business.  There  would  certainly  be  far  less  likeli- 
hood of  abuse  of  power  under  such  a system  than  there 
is  now  under  the  local  option  system.  For,  under  the 
latter  system,  a bare  majority  of  the  voters  can,  at  one 
stroke,  revoke  every  license  in  the  town  without  trial  or 
hearing  or  reason.  The  most  reputable  liquor  dealer  is 
no  safer  than  the  dive  keeper.  The  proposed  plan  is  home 
rule  of  the  right  kind.  It  gives  the  people  all  the  power 
they  need  to  regulate,  but  no  power  to  destroy  and  confis- 
cate. Lhider  this  system,  the  liquor  business  would  be 
placed  on  a permanent  footing.  Every  dealer  would  be 
absolutely  sure  that  his  license  was  secure  as  long  as  he 
obeyed  the  law  and  conducted  his  business  decently.  The 
only  persons  that  would  be  put  out  of  business  would 
be  the  disreputable  liquor  dealer  and  the  prohibition  agitator. 


Liquor  Not  a Provoker  of 
Divorce 


“The  Cause  of  Unhappiness  in  American  Homes,”  by 
Allan  L.  Benson,  published  in  Pearson’s  Magazine,  Decem- 
ber, 1909,  is  an  entertaining  and  exhaustive  view  of  condi- 
tions which  lead  to  domestic  unhappiness  and  divorce  in  this 
country.  Mr.  Benson  tells  us  that  in  ten  years  945,625 
divorces  were  granted  in  the  United  States. 

After  commenting  upon  poverty  as  a divorce  producer, 
he  gives  some  entertaining  facts  and  figures  on  the  subject  of 
liquor  as  a cause  of  divorce.  We  print  this  portion  of  his 
remarks : 

“Facts  even  more  surprising — and,  also  somewhat  amus- 
ing— confront  the  contention  of  our  prohibitionist  friends. 
In  the  first  place,  strong  drink  does  not  seem  to  be  particu- 
larly effective  as  a divorce-provoker.  Of  the  945,625  divorces 
that  were  granted  in  the  United  States  during  the  ten 
years  that  ended  with  1906,  drink  was  directly  charged  with 
only  3.9  per  cent.  Even  when  all  the  cases  were  considered 
in  which  drink  might  have  been  an  indirect  cause,  the  total 
arose  only  to  19.5  per  cent.  Cruelty  on  the  part  of  sober 
husbands  caused  32.4  per  cent,  of  the  divorces  that  were 
granted  to  women,  and  the  failure  of  non-alcoholic  hus- 
bands to  provide  the  necessities  of  life  also  outranked  the 
combined  direct  and  indirect  responsibility  of  alcohol. 

“And,  here  is  where  the  laugh  is  on  the  prohibitionists : 
Of  the  fifty  States  and  Territories,  Blaine  ranks  fourth  in 
132 


LIQUOR  AND  DIVORCE. 


133 


the  percentage  of  divorces  granted  to  women  because  of  the 
drunkenness  of  their  husbands,  and  sixteenth  in  the  per- 
centage of  divorces  granted  to  men  by  reason  of  the  drunk- 
enness— of  their  wives.  And  this  is  the  same  Maine  in 
which  there  has  been  prohibition  for  twenty-five  years. 
Maine  far  outclasses  Kentucky  with  regard  both  to  men 
and  women  drunkards  who  get  into  divorce  courts.  Ken- 
tucky is  not  mentioned  in  a disparaging  way.  It  is  simply 
referred  to  for  purposes  of  comparison,  because  the  nature 
of  some  of  its  industries  connects  it  rather  prominently 
with  the  whisky  business. 

“All  of  which  would  seem  to  lead  to  the  conclusion  that 
while  drink  is  sometimes  bad  for  the  home,  prohibition  is 
not  always  bad  for  drink.  Maybe  the  facts  are  otherwise. 
If  so,  the  Maine  prohibitionists  will  doubtless  be  given 
close  attention  while  they  explain. 


Temperance 


V 


ersus 


Prokitition 


BY  PERCY  ANDREAE. 


Somewhere  in  the  Bible  it  is  said : “If  thy  right  hand 
ofifend  thee,  cut  it  off.”  I used  to  think  the  remedy  some- 
what radical.  But  to-day,  being  imbued  with  the  wisdom 
of  the  prohibitionist,  I have  to  acknowledge  that  if  the 
Bible  in  general,  and  that  passage  in  it  in  particular,  has  a 
fault,  it  lies  in  its  ultra-conservativeness.  What?  ^Merely 
cut  off  my  own  right  hand  if  it  offend  me?  What  busi- 
ness have  my  neighbors  to  keep  their  right  hands  if  I am 
not  able  to  make  mine  behave  itself?  Off  with  the  lot  of 
them ! Let  there  be  no  right  hands ; then  I am  certain  that 
mine  won’t  land  me  in  trouble. 

I have  met  many  active  prohibitionists,  both  in  this  and 
in  other  countries,  all  of  them  thoroughly  in  earnest.  In 
some  instances  I have  found  that  their  allegiance  to  the 
cause  of  prohibition  took  its  origin  in  the  fact  that  some 
near  relative  or  friend  had  succumbed  to  overindulgence  in 
liquor.  In  one  or  two  cases  the  man  himself  had  been  a 
victim  of  this  weakness,  and  had  come  to  the  conclusion, 
firstly,  that  every  one  else  was  constituted  as  he  was,  and, 
therefore,  liable  to  the  same  danger ; and,  secondly,  that 
unless  every  one  were  prevented  from  drinking,  he  would 
not  be  secure  from  the  temptation  to  do  so  himself. 

This  is  one  class  of  prohibitionists.  The  other,  and  by 
far  the  larger  class,  is  made  up  of  religious  zealots,  to 
134 


TEMPERANCE  z/j.  PROHIBITION. 


135 


whom  prohibition  is  a word  having  at  bottom  a far  wider 
application  than  that  which  is  generally  attributed  to  it. 
The  liquor  question,  if  there  really  is  such  a question  per  se, 
is  merely  put  forth  by  them  as  a means  to  an  end,  an  in- 
cidental factor  in  a fight  which  has  for  its  object  the  su- 
premacy of  a certain  form  of  religious  faith.  The  belief  of 
many  of  these  people  is,  that  the  Creator  frowns  upon  en- 
joyment of  any  and  every  kind,  and  that  he  has  merely 
endowed  us  with  certain  desires  and  capacities  for  pleasure 
in  order  to  give  us  an  opportunity  to  please  Him  by  re- 
sisting them.  They  are,  of  course,  perfectly  entitled  to 
this  belief,  though  some  of  us  may  consider  it  eccentric  and 
somewhat  in  the  nature  of  a libel  on  the  Almighty.  But  are 
they  privileged  to  force  that  belief  on  all  their  fellow- 
beings?  That,  in  substance,  is  the  question  that  is  in- 
volved in  the  present-day  prohibition  movement. 

For  it  is  all  nonsense  to  suppose  that  because,  perhaps, 
one  in  a hundred  or  so  of  human  beings  is  too  weak  to  re- 
sist the  temptation  of  overindulging  in  drink — or  of  over- 
indulging in  anything  else,  for  the  matter  of  that — therefore 
all  mankind  is  going  to  forego  the  right  to  indulge  in  that 
enjoyment  in  moderation.  The  leaders  of  the  so-called 
prohibition  movement  know  as  well  as  you  and  I do  that 
you  can  no  more  prevent  an  individual  from  taking  a 
drink  if  he  be  so  inclined  than  you  can  prevent  him 
from  scratching  himself  if  he  itches.  They  object  to  the 
existence  of  the  saloon,  not,  bear  in  mind,  to  that  of  the 
badly-conducted  saloon,  but  to  that  of  the  well-regulated, 
decent  saloon,  and  wherever  they  succeed  in  destroying  the 
latter,  their  object,  which  is  the  manifestation  of  their  polit- 
ical power,  is  attained.  That  for  every  decent,  well-ordered 
saloon  they  destroy  there  springs  up  a dive,  or  speak-easy, 
or  blind  tiger,  or  whatever  other  name  it  may  be  known 
by,  and  the  dispensing  of  drink  continues  as  merrily  as 
before,  doesn’t  disturb  them  at  all.  They  make  the  sale  of 


136 


PROHIBITION. 


liquor  a crime,  but  steadily  refuse  to  make  its  purchase 
and  consumption  an  offense.  Time  and  again  the  indus- 
tries affected  by  this  apparently  senseless  crusade  have  en- 
deavored to  have  laws  passed  making  dry  territories  really 
dry  by  providing  for  the  punishment  of  the  man  who  buys 
drink  as  well  as  the  man  who  sells  it.  But  every  such 
attempt  has  been  fiercely  opposed  by  the  prohibition  leaders. 
And  why?  Because  they  know  only  too  well  that  the  first 
attempt  to  really  prohibit  drinking  would  put  an  end  to 
their  power  forever.  They  know  that  80  per  cent,  of 
those  who,  partly  by  coercion,  partly  from  sentiment,  vote 
dry  are  perfectly  willing  to  restrict  the  right  of  the  re- 
maining 20  per  cent,  to  obtain  drink,  but  that  they  are  not 
willing  to  sacrifice  that  right  for  themselves. 

And  so  the  farce  called  prohibition  goes  on,  and  will 
continue  to  go  on  as  long  as  it  brings  grist  to  the  mill 
of  the  managers  who  are  producing  it.  But  the  farce  con- 
ceals something  far  more  serious  than  that  which  is  ap- 
parent to  the  public  on  the  face  of  it.  Prohibition  is  merely 
the  title  of  the  movement.  Its  real  purpose  is  of  a religious, 
sectarian  character,  and  this  applies  not  only  to  the  move- 
ment in  America  but  to  the  same  movement  in  England, 
a fact  which,  strangely  enough,  has  rarely,  if  at  all,  been 
recognized  by  those  who  have  dealt  with  the  question  in 
the  public  press. 

If  there  is  any  one  who  doubts  the  truth  of  this  state- 
ment, let  me  put  this  to  him : How  many  Roman  Catholics 
are  prohibitionists.  How  many  Jews,  the  most  temperate 
race  on  earth,  are  to  be  found  in  the  ranks  of  prohibition? 
Or  Lutherans?  Or  German  Protestants  generally?  What 
is  the  proportion  of  Episcopalians  to  that  of  Methodists, 
Baptists  and  Presbyterians,  and  the  like,  in  the  active  pro- 
hibition army?  The  answer  to  these  questions  will,  I ven- 
ture to  say,  prove  conclusively  the  assertion  that  the  fight 
for  prohibition  is  synonymous  with  the  fight  of  a certain 


TEMPERANCE  w.  PROHIBITION. 


137 


religious  sect,  or  group  of  religious  sects,  for  the  su- 
premacy of  its  ideas.  In  England  it  is  the  Non-conform- 
ists, which  is  in  that  country  the  generic  name  for  the 
same  sects,  who  are  fighting  the  fight,  and  the  suppression 
of  liquor  is  there  no  more  the  ultimate  end  they  have  in 
view  than  it  is  here  in  America.  It  is  the  fads  and  restric- 
tions that  are  part  and  parcel  of  their  lugubrious  notion  of 
God-worship  which  they  eventually  hope  to  impose  upon  the 
rest  of  humanity:  a Sunday  without  a smile,  no  games,  no 
recreation,  no  pleasures,  no  music,  card-playing  tabooed, 
dancing  anathematized,  the  beauties  of  art  decried  as  im- 
pure— in  short,  this  world  reduced  to  a barren,  forbidding 
wilderness  in  which  we,  its  inhabitants,  are  to  pass  our  time 
contemplating  the  joys  of  the  next.  Rather  problematical 
joys,  by  the  way,  if  we  are  to  suppose  that  we  shall  worship 
God  in  the  next  world  in  the  same  somber  way  as  we  are 
called  upon  by  these  worthies  to  do  in  this. 

To  my  mind,  and  that  of  many  others,  the  hearty,  happy 
laugh  of  a human  being  on  a sunny  Sunday  is  music 
sweeter  to  the  ears  of  that  being’s  Creator  than  all  the 
groanings,  and  meanings,  and  misericordias  that  rise  to 
heaven  from  the  lips  of  those  who  would  deprive  us  alto- 
gether of  the  faculty  and  the  privilege  of  mirth.  That 
some  overdo  hilarity  and  become  coarse  and  offensive  goes 
without  saying.  There  are  people  without  the  sense  of 
proportion  or  propriety  in  all  matters.  Yet  none  of  us 
think  of  abolishing  pleasures  because  a few  do  not  know 
how  to  enjoy  them  in  moderation  and  with  decency,  and 
become  an  offense  to  their  neighbors. 

The  drink  evil  has  existed  from  time  immemorial,  just 
as  sexual  excess  has,  and  all  other  vices  to  which  mankind 
is  and  always  will  be  more  or  less  prone,  though  less  in 
proportion  as  education  progresses  and  the  benefits  of  civ- 
ilization increase.  Sexual  excess,  curiously  enough,  has 
never  interested  our  hyper-religious  friends,  the  prohibi- 


PROHIBITION. 


138 

tionists,  in  anything  like  the  degree  that  the  vice  of  exces- 
sive drinking  does.  Perhaps  this  is  because  the  best  of  us 
have  our  pet  aversions  and  our  pet  -weaknesses.  Yet  this 
particular  vice  has  produced  more  evil  results  to  the  human 
race  than  all  other  vices  combined,  and  in  spite  of  it,  man- 
kind— thanks  not  to  prohibitive  laws  and  restrictive  legis- 
lation, but  to  the  forward  strides  of  knowledge  and  to 
patient  and  intelligent  education — is  to-day  ten  times  sounder 
in  body  and  healthier  in  mind  than  it  ever  was  in  the 
world’s  history. 

‘Now,  if  the  habit  of  drinking  to  excess  were  a grow- 
ing one,  as  our  prohibitionist  friends  claim  that  it  is,  we 
should  to-day,  instead  of  discussing  this  question  with  more 
or  less  intelligence,  not  be  here  at  all  to  argue  it;  for  the 
evil,  such  as  it  is,  has  existed  for  so  many  ages  that,  if  it 
were  as  general  and  as  contagious  as  is  claimed,  and  its 
results  as  far-reaching  as  they  are  painted,  the  human  race 
would  have  been  destroyed  by  it  long  ago.  Of  course,  the 
contrary  is  the  case.  The  world  has  progressed  in  this  as 
in  all  other  respects.  Compare,  for  instance,  the  drinking 
to-day  with  the  drinking  of  a thousand  )’ears  ago,  nay,  of 
only  a hundred  odd  years  ago,  when  a man,  if  he  wanted 
to  ape  his  so-called  betters,  did  so  by  contriving  to  be 
carried  to  bed  every  night  “drunk  as  a lord.”  Has  that 
condition  of  affairs  been  altered  by  legislative  measures 
restricting  the  right  of  the  individual  to  control  himself? 
No.  It  has  been  altered  by  that  far  greater  power,  the 
moral  force  of  education  and  the  good  example  which 
teaches  mankind  the  very  thing  that  prohibition  would  take 
from  it:  the  virtue  of  self-control  and  moderation  in  all 
things. 

And  here  we  come  to  the  vital  distinction  between  the 
advocacy  of  temperance  and  the  advocacy  of  prohibition. 
Temperance  and  self-control  are  convertible  terms.  Prohi- 
bition, or  that  which  it  implies,  is  the  direct  negation  of 


TEMPERANCE  PROHIBITION. 


139 


the  term  of  self-control.  In  order  to  save  the  small  per- 
centage of  men  who  are  too  weak  to  resist  their  animal 
desires,  it  aims  to  put  chains  on  every  man,  the  weak  and 
the  strong  alike.  And  if  this  is  proper  in  one  respect, 
why  not  in  all  respects?  Yet,  what  would  one  think  of  a 
proposition  to  keep  all  men  locked  up  because  a certain 
number  have  a propensity  to  steal?  Theoretically,  perhaps, 
all  crime  or  vice  could  be  stopped  by  chaining  us  all  up 
as  we  chain  up  a wild  animal,  and  only  allowing  us  to 
take  exercise  under  proper  supervision  and  control.  But 
while  such  a measure  would  check  crime,  it  would  not 
eliminate  the  criminal.  It  is  true,  some  people  are  only 
kept  from  vice  and  crime  by  the  fear  of  punishment.  Is 
not,  indeed,  the  basis  of  some  men’s  religiousness  nothing 
else  but  the  fear  of  Divine  punishment?  The  doctrines  of 
certain  religious  denominations  not  entirely  unknown  in 
the  prohibition  camp  make  self-respect,  which  is  the  foun- 
dation of  self-control  and  of  all  morality,  a sin.  They 
decry  rather  than  advocate  it.  They  love  to  call  themselves 
miserable,  helpless  sinners,  cringing  before  the  flaming 
sword,  and  it  is  the  flaming  sword,  not  the  exercise  of  their 
own  enlightened  will,  that  keeps  them  within  decent  bounds. 
Yet  has  this  fear  of  eternal  punishment  contributed  one  iota 
toward  the  intrinsic  betterment  of  the  human  being?  If  it 
had,  would  so  many  of  our  Christian  creeds  have  discarded 
it,  admitting  that  it  is  the  precepts  of  religion,  not  its  dark 
and  dire  threats,  that  make  men  truly  better  and  stronger 
within  themselves  to  resist  that  which  our  self-respect  teaches 
us  is  bad  and  harmful.  The  growth  of  self-respect  in  man, 
with  its  outward  manifestation,  self-control  is  the  growth 
of  civilization.  If  we  are  to  be  allowed  to  exercise  it  no 
longer,  it  must  die  in  us  from  want  of  nutrition,  and  men 
must  become  savages  once  more,  fretting  now  at  their 
chains,  which  they  will  break  as  inevitably  as  the  sun  will 
rise  to-morrow  and  herald  a new  day. 


140 


PROHIBITION. 


I consider  the  danger  which  threatens  civilized  society 
from  the  growing  power  of  a sect  whose  views  on  prohibi- 
tion are  merely  an  exemplification  of  their  general  low 
estimate  of  man’s  ability  to  rise  to  higher  things  by  his 
own  volition  to  be  of  infinitely  greater  consequence  than  the 
danger  that,  in  putting  their  narrow  theories  to  the  test,  a 
few  billions  of  invested  property  wall  be  destroyed,  a num- 
ber of  great  wealth-producing  industries  wiped  out,  the 
rate  of  individual  taxation  largely  increased,  and  a million 
or  so  of  struggling  wage  earners  doomed  to  face  starva- 
tion. These  latter  considerations,  of  course,  must  appeal 
to  every  thinking  man,  but  what  are  they  compared  with 
the  greater  questions  involved?  Already  the  government 
of  our  State,  and  indeed  of  a good  many  other  States,  has 
passed  practically  into  the  hands  of  a few  preacher-politi- 
cians of  a certain  creed.  With  the  machine  they  have 
built  up,  by  appealing  to  the  emotional  weaknesses  of  the 
more  or  less  unintelligent  masses,  they  have  lifted  them- 
selves on  to  a pedestal  of  power  that  has  enabled  them  to 
dictate  legislation  or  defeat  it  at  their  will,  to  usurp  the 
functions  of  the  governing  head  of  the  State  and  actually 
induce  him  to  delegate  to  them  the  appointive  powers  vested 
in  him  by  the  Constitution.  When  a governor  elected  by 
the  popular  vote  admits,  as  was  recently  the  case,  that  he 
can  not  appoint  a man  to  one  of  the  most  important  offices 
of  the  State  without  the  indorsement  of  the  irresponsible 
leader  of  a certain  semi-religious  movement,  and  when 
he  submits  to  this  same  personage  for  correction  and 
amendment  his  recommendations  to  the  legislative  body, 
there  can  scarcely  be  any  doubt  left  in  any  reasonable  mind 
as  to  the  extent  of  the  power  wielded  by  this  leader,  or  as 
to  the  uses  he  and  those  behind  him  intend  putting  it  to. 

And  what  does  it  all  mean?  It  means  that  government 
by  emotion  is  to  be  substituted  for  government  by  reason, 
and  government  by  emotion,  of  which  history  affords  many 


TEMPERANCE  w.  PROHIBITION.  141 

examples,  is,  according  to  the  testimony  of  all  ages,  the 
most  dangerous  and  pernicious  of  all  forms  of  govern- 
ment. It  has  already  crept  into  the  legislative  assemblies 
of  most  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  and  is  being  craftily 
fostered  by  those  who  know  how  easily  it  can  be  made 
available  for  their  purposes — purposes  to  the  furtherance 
of  which  cool  reason  would  never  lend  itself.  Prohibition 
is  but  one  of  its  fruits,  and  the  hand  that  is  plucking  this 
fruit  is  the  same  hand  of  intolerance  that  drove  forth  cer- 
tain of  our  forefathers  from  the  land  of  their  birth  to  seek 
the  sheltering  freedom  of  these  shores. 

V/hat  a strange  reversal  of  conditions ! The  intolerants 
of  a few  hundred  years  ago  are  the  upholders  of  liberty 
to-day,  while  those  they  once  persecuted,  having  multiplied 
by  grace  of  the  very  liberty  that  has  so  long  sheltered  them 
here,  are  now  planning  to  impose  the  tyranny  of  their  nar- 
rovvr  creed  upon  the  descendants  of  their  persecutors  of 
yore. 

Let  the  greater  public,  which  is,  after  all,  the  arbiter  of 
the  country’s  destinies,  pause  and  ponder  these  things  be- 
fore they  are  allowed  to  progress  too  far.  Prohibition, 
though  it  must  cause,  and  is  already  causing,  incalculable 
damage,  may  never  succeed  in  this  country ; but  that  which 
is  behind  it,  as  the  catapults  and  the  cannon  were  behind 
the  battering  rams  in  the  battles  of  olden  days,  is  certain 
to  succeed  unless  timely  measures  of  prevention  are  re- 
sorted to;  and  if  it  does  succeed,  we  shall  witness  the 
enthronement  of  a monarch  in  this  land  of  liberty  com- 
pared with  whose  autocracy  the  autocracy  of  the  Russian 
Czar  is  a mere  trifle. 

The  name  of  this  monarch  is  Religious  Intolerance. 


Xke  Riglits  of  tlie  Minority 


This  communication  from  Mr.  Stanley  E.  Bowdle  to 
the  Sotith-W est,  was  printed  in  the  December  17,  1909, 
issue  of  that  paper. 

Mr.  Bowdle  is  well  and  favorably  known  as  a law)'er, 
thinker  and  writer,  and  his  lectures  before  the  members  of 
the  Ohio  Personal  Liberty  League  have  been  among  the 
rare  treats  afforded  the  members  of  that  organization. 

“Without  attempting  in  any  way  to  answer  ]\Ir.  Br)'an 
as  to  his  views  on  personal  liberty,  nor  to  do  more  than 
refer  to  your  excellent  editorial  treatment  of  it,  let  me  say  a 
word  or  two. 

“Personal  liberty  is  not  susceptible  of  definition.  It  is 
idle  to  worry  about  it.  It  should  be  passed  at  once  into  the 
limbo  of  the  useless  and  forgotten.  No  less  an  intellect 
than  Edmond  Kelly,  just  deceased,  the  greatest  philosopher 
(in  my  judgment)  since  Spencer,  amply  shows  that  ‘Liberty’ 
can  not  be  defined.  But  the  function  of  Government  can 
be  defined.  Here  is  where  our  faculties  should  be  concen- 
trated. The  ‘pay  streak’  is  found  here.  We  must  determine 
what  the  true  function  of  Government  is  and  what  it  is  not. 

“Liberty  is  a changing  element.  To-day  we  want  to  do 
this ; to-morrow,  by  reason  of  some  broader,  higher  culture, 
we  want  to  do  a very  different  thing.  Changing  ideas 
change  our  lives.  Hence  liberty  is  an  illusive  term. 

“But  Government  is  not  an  illusive  term.  The  true 
function  of  Government  is  a reasonably  fixed  thing.  True, 
142 


MINORITY  RIGHTS. 


143 


government  may  extend  the  scope  of  its  operation ; but 
scope  of  operation  does  not  affect  essential  function. 

“I  am  not  attempting  to  define  by  any  means  at  this 
time  the  true  function  of  Government.  I simply  desire  to 
point  out  the  fact  that  there  are  prevalent  some  very  erro- 
neous ideas  of  that  function,  and  that  some  of  those  ideas 
are  likely  to  lead  us  far  away  from  the  plan  adopted  by 
the  fathers. 

“For  instance,  it  is  a very  popular  notion  that  the  Gov- 
ernmental machinery  was  intended  for  the  use  of  the  ma- 
jority. The  fact  is,  our  constitutional  guarantees  were  in- 
tended for  the  use  and  protection  of  minorities.  Majorities 
need  no  protection.  Our  Government  was  set  up  by  a mi- 
nority for  the  protection  of  minorities.  Minorities  in  Eu- 
rope, tired  of  being  kicked  and  cuffed  about  by  majorities, 
quit  Europe  and  came  to  America  to  set  up  a Government 
where  a minority  could  live  like  gentlemen,  and  where  so- 
ciety was  not  thrown  into  an  uproar  by  the  temporary  will 
of  a temporary  majority.  Majorities  had  continually 
usurped  the  functions  of  the  States  of  Europe.  Erom  this 
usurpation  minorities  finally  fled.  The  minority  claimed 
that  everything  claimed  by  it  could  be  allowed  by  the  ma- 
jority and  society  still  continue  to  advance  rapidly  and 
healthfully.  Their  chief  claim  in  this  respect  touched  the 
matter  of  religion,  of  course.  And  time  has  proved  most 
wonderfully  that  the  claim  of  the  minority  was  right.  The 
State  now  neither  touches,  tastes,  nor  handles  the  matter 
of  religion. 

“We  have  found  that  for  the  State  to  attempt  the  estab- 
lishment of  religion  is  to  usurp  its  true  function.  Practice 
has  demonstrated  this,  and  an  energetic  minority  claimed  it 
long  in  advance  of  practice.  They  said  this  from  the  stakes, 
the  gibbets,  the  racks  and  wheels  of  Europe.  They  said 
this  while  the  bones  cracked,  and  while  their  flesh  smoked. 
A murderous  world  of  ignorance  finally  listened. 


144 


PROHIBITION. 


“But  America  to-day  is  forgetting  all  this  in  a variety 
of  ways.  A late  instance  of  it  happened  to  me : My  daugh- 
ter, a healthy  child,  was  excluded  the  other  day  from  the 
public  schools  because  I declined  to  have  her  vaccinated 
with  cow-pus,  believing  in  the  schools  of  Spencer  and  Wal- 
lace. Health  is  thus  driven  into  the  same  isolation  as  small- 
pox. A healthy  child  is  thus  declared  to  be  as  much  a 
menace  as  one  afflicted  with  smallpox.  A school  of  med- 
icine has  seized  our  public  schools  and  is  now  empowered 
to  drive  out  those  who  differ  from  them.  Force  is  appealed 
to  by  this  school,  and  Christian  Scientists,  Emmanuel  Move- 
mentists,  and  other  non-conformists  are  simply  driven  out. 
And  now  I see  that  the  great  Dr.  Vaughn,  of  Ann  Arbor, 
is  out  with  a plan  requiring  every  man  to  be  examined 
twice  a year  by  at  least  two  doctors,  and  secure  a certificate 
of  health.  Healthy  men  will  be  required  to  present  their 
cards  like  Paris  harlots.  Men  are  to  be  certified  like  milk. 
And  all  this  by  force. 

“The  simple  fact  is  that  to-day  the  whole  function  of 
human  government  has  been  usurped.  To  govern  little  was 
the  idea  of  the  fathers.  To  govern  much  is  the  idea  of 
the  children.  To  keep  as  far  from  man’s  private  life,  his 
house,  and  his  ideas,  was  the  idea  of  the  fathers.  To  in- 
vade his  private  life,  to  destroy  the  sanctity  of  his  house, 
and  to  disregard  his  ideas,  is  the  idea  of  his  children.  The 
situation  is  most  serious.  How  to  keep  cheerful  under  it, 
is  a serious  question.  We  Americans  have  totally  forgotten 
our  heritage.  We  are  throwing  to  the  dogs  the  finest  prin- 
ciples of  our  fathers.  The  end  will  be  anarchy  and  night 
unless  sanity  can  prevail  among  the  leaders.” 


Tke  “Di 


ive  an 


d ^iV"ky  it  Exists 


BY  JOSEPH  DEBAR. 


Students  of  sociology  tell  us  that  no  general  popular 
outbreak,  like  the  present  prohibition  wave,  could  exist  and 
endure  without  some  potent  underlying  cause.  The  causes 
assigned  are  many  and  largely  erroneous,  but  chief  among 
them  we  are  told  is  the  offensive  saloon.  To  the  prohibi- 
tionist all  saloons  are  evil — as  are  all  retail  liquor  stores, 
wholesale  liquor  houses,  breweries  and  distilleries.  To  the 
fanatical  declaimer  against  rum,  no  good  can  be  found  in 
any  of  these — they  all  look  alike  to  him.  He  loves  them 
only  for  the  horrors  they  present  and  the  arguments  he 
can  evolve  from  them  to  compass  their  destruction. 

But  among  the  reasoning  and  sane  portion  of  our  popu- 
lation, we  still  find  men  free  from  the  taint  of  bigotry  and 
fanaticism,  who  complain  of  the  objectionable  saloon,  and 
the  protests  of  such  men  are  without  doubt  worthy  of  at- 
tention. 

We  hear  a great  deal  about  the  “dives”  of  the  liquor 
traffic.  What  is  a “dive”  and  why  does  it  exist? 

It  is  an  Anglo-Saxon  failing  to  confuse  dirt,  vulgarity, 
commonness  and  uncouthness  with  evil  and  immorality, 
and  in  censuring  a certain  class  of  saloons,  this  error  in 
discrimination  is  frequently  in  evidence,  and  to  it  is  due 
in  great  measure  the  popular  outcry  against  the  unattrac- 
tive saloon. 


145 


146 


PROHIBITION. 


A rural  preacher  recently  complained  that  in  his  town, 
a small  county-seat  tOMm,  there  were  eleven  saloons,  and 
that  four  of  them  were  “hell  holes.”  This  is  the  ministerial 
appellation  for  a “dive.”  When  asked  what  tax  or  license 
fee  these  places  paid  he  answered  a thousand  dollars  a year 
each.  Had  they  been  in  existence  for  any  considerable 
length  of  time?  Yes,  some  of  them  for  several  years.  Did 
they  make  money?  Of  course  they  made  money,  or  they 
would  not  stay  in  the  business. 

It  was  pointed  out  to  him  that  he  had,  by  his  answers 
to  the  question  asked  of  him,  practically  admitted  that  there 
was  in  his  community  a sufficient  number  of  people  willing 
to  frequent  and  perpetuate  offensive  places  to  the  extent  of 
making  them  paying  and  profitable  to  their  owners. 

In  such  cases  is  the  fault  with  the  community  which 
patronizes,  or  with  the  keepers  of  such  places,  who,  by  our 
minister’s  admission,  were  merely  supplying  a popular  de- 
mand for  their  existence? 

Our  ministerial  friend  had  failed  to  grasp  the  idea  that 
he  was  laying  bare  the  sore  spots  in  his  community,  and  in 
so  doing  he  was  verifying  the  old  adage  that  “it  is  a poor 
bird  which  befouls  its  own  nest.” 

May  we  not  deduce  from  this  instance — and  from  all 
similar  instances — that  saloons  are  a mere  reflex  of  the 
communities  in  which  they  exist?  And  to  which  end  of 
the  problem  may  we  justly  ask  the  minister  to  direct  his 
energies  for  reform?  To  the  saloon  which  is  what  its 
patrons  make  it,  or  to  the  community  which  makes  the 
saloon  what  it  is? 

Are  we  not  justified  in  saying  that  the  saloon  does  not 
differ  from  any  other  purveyor  to  public  demand? 

Is  not  the  average  hotel,  restaurant,  grocery,  general 
store,  dry  goods  shop,  barber  shop,  meat  shop,  a reflex  of 
the  community  in  which  it  exists. 

The  nature  of  the  supply  and  demand  regulates  all  of 


THE  “DIVE.” 


147 


these  callings.  Given  a crude,  uncouth  community,  and  we 
find  a corresponding  hostelry,  with  bedbugs  unfettered  and 
food  of  the  worst,  both  in  quality  and  preparation.  Given 
an  up-to-date  thrifty  population  and  we  find  a neat  and 
comfortable,  if  modest,  hotel.  And  the  same  holds  true 
of  all  stores  and  shops  seeking  public  patronage. 

Let  it  be  understood  that  we  are  not  venturing  one  word 
of  defense  for  the  disreputable  saloon.  We  are  reviewing 
the  situation  as  it  exists,  not  as  we  would  like  to  have  it. 

We  are  seeking  the  cause  of  bad  conditions  in  the  retail 
liquor  trade,  believing  that  when  the  true  cause  is  found, 
the  remedy  will  become  evident  and  be  applied. 

In  the  very  considerable  manufacturing  town  of  Spring- 
field,  Ohio,  the  writer  once  saw  an  object-lesson  bearing 
upon  the  question  under  discussion. 

The  whistle  of  a great  harvesting  machine  shop  blew 
announcing  the  noon  hour.  Into  a nearby  saloon,  sweat- 
streaked,  soot-begrimed  men  came  in  a steady  stream.  The 
writer  counted  thirty-three  of  them,  hurrying  from  the 
awful  heat  which  an  August  day  and  the  stifle  of  the 
molding  room  of  a great  foundry  had  inflicted  on  these 
tired  sons  of  toil. 

Some  had  worked  for  hours  in  the  swelter  of  a cupola 
of  seething  metal ; others  had  swung  sledges  and  handled 
tons  of  molten  iron,  and  the  black  dust  of  the  molders’ 
earth  had  painted  their  faces  and  clogged  their  throats. 
Up  to  the  rude  pine  bar  they  came,  like  thirsty  sheep  to  a 
running  stream.  As  the  schooners  of  beer  were  handed 
up,  not  a word  was  heard,  only  the  thirsty  gurgle  of  the 
cooling  liquid  allaying  parched  throats.  One  by  one  they 
left  the  bar  and  dropped  in  weariness  to  the  rude  benches 
and  beer  kegs  standing  about  on  the  sawdust  strewn  floor, 
each  with  lunch  box,  dinner  pail  or  basket  in  hand. 

Was  this  saloon  a “dive?”  Crude,  dirty,  grimy  it  was; 
like  its  patrons.  Kept  by  an  honest  and  conscientious  man. 


148 


PROHIBITION. 


it  was  above  criticism  in  moral  tone;  no  women  frequented 
it,  no  loafers  or  toughs  hung  about  it.  Its  patrons  were 
hardworking  men  of  integrity  and  industry,  albeit  of  sweat 
and  grime,  and  plain  speech  flavored  with  pipe  and  stogie 
smoke. 

And  yet  our  kid-gloved  ministers  of  the  gospel,  who  toil 
not  nor  spin,  and  who  swing  no  sledges,  nor  wield  any- 
thing heavier  than  their  brains,  and  hammer  nothing  but 
the  cushions  of  their  pulpit  rails,  tell  us  that  such  a place 
is  a “dive” — a “low  down  dirty  saloon.” 

Students  of  sociology,  these  gentlemen  esteem  them- 
selves, but  their  studies  of  social  conditions  are  usually  con- 
fined to  a review  of  the  millinery  array  of  their  well-fed 
wealthy  parishioners  who  sit  before  them  in  sparse  array 
of  a Sunday  morning,  if  the  weather  be  fine,  but  their  re- 
searches seldom  penetrate  into  the  realm  of  toil  and  weari- 
ness and  sweat  and  grime  and  molders’  earth. 

And  there  are  hundreds  of  such  saloons  in  the  manu- 
facturing towns  of  our  country,  filling  a want  and  filling  it 
properly,  soberly  and  with  no  breach  of  good  morals. 

Such  places  are  not  attractive  to  the  passing  public ; how 
could  they  be ; nor  are  their  patrons  attractive  in  appear- 
ance. How  could  they  be  under  the  physical  requirements 
of  their  arduous  calling? 

So  let  us  go  slowly  before  we  stamp  the  name  “dive”  on 
the  saloon  of  the  poor  man  and  the  toiler,  while  giving  to 
the  rich  privileges  of  their  well  stocked  cellars. 

But  are  there  really  no  “dives”?  Certainly  there  are, 
and  always  will  be  under  license  or  no  license,  so  long  as 
the  conscience  of  our  public  officials  who  are  charged  with 
the  enforcement  of  law  is  as  clouded  as  the  vision  of  the 
preachers  who  condemn  without  knowledge  and  without 
discrimination. 

Laws  do  not  enforce  themselves,  although  good  laws 
backed  by  public  sentiment,  come  very  near  doing  so. 


THE  “DIVE.” 


149 


Sumptuary  laws,  especially  if  drastic,  never  enforce  them- 
selves because  they  always  lack  the  support  of  general  pub- 
lic approval. 

But  laws  which  are  but  fairly  good  can  be  enforced  when 
public  officials  do  their  duty. 

There  are  “dives”  but  “dives”  are  not  saloons.  The 
primary  object  of  the  “dives”  is  not  the  sale  of  liquor  as 
a paying  business.  With  them  the  selling  of  liquor  is 
always  a mere  adjunct  to  something  else.  Such  places  are 
most  often  resorts  for  lewdness,  plain  thieves’  dens  or 
“fences”  or  gambling  joints  of  the  “hold-up”  variety.  There 
is  no  reason  why  they  should  sell  liquor  or  be  permitted  to 
sell  liquor.  They  are  not  liquor  dealers,  nor  in  existence 
for  the  purpose  of  selling  liquor.  Liquor  selling  is  used 
as  a blind  for  their  true  calling,  and  if  public  officials  did 
their  duty  by  properly  enforcing  existing  laws,  such  places 
would  be  promptly  abated  as  nuisances  to  the  great  advan- 
tage of  the  community,  and  of  the  legitimate  liquor  busi- 
ness, which  is  made  to  bear  the  odium  of  their  iniquities, 
but  after  all,  the  real  reform,  as  we  have  stated  before,  lies 
in  the  reformation  of  the  individual,  and  as  the  individual 
is  improved,  so  will  the  community  become  better. 

But  the  morals  of  a community  can  not  be  improved  by 
act  of  legislation,  nor  can  the  morals  of  individuals.  The 
influences  of  religion  and  of  home  training,  of  precept  and 
good  example,  applied  to  the  individual,  alone  constitute 
effective  moral  culture,  and  these  are  the  only  influences 
which  will  better  the  individual,  and  through  the  individual 
the  community  of  which  the  individual  is  an  integral  part. 

And  religion  to  be  genuine  must  not  be  hysteria,  nor 
emotionalism,  nor  sensationalism,  but  the  consciousness  of 
each  individual’s  responsibility  to  Almighty  God  for  right- 
eousness and  good  conduct. 

When  these  conditions  are  attained  the  “dive”  will  perish 
for  lack  of  sustaining  patronage.  Under  morality  enforced 


PROHIBITION. 


150 

by  legislation,  the  “dive”  will  continue  its  miasmic  existence, 
hidden  maybe  from  the  light  of  day,  but  still  exhaling  its 
poisonous  influences  to  the  scandal  and  detriment  of  its 
surroundings,  and  this  it  will  do  whether  or  nor  it  dispenses 
liquor  as  a blind  or  side  issue  to  its  true  calling. 


Intemperance  Not  tke  Cause 
of  Poverty 


A table  has  been  prepared  by  Prof.  Warner,  at  Stanford 
University,  based  on  fifteen  separate  investigations  of  actual 
cases  of  poverty,  numbering  in  all  over  100,000  cases  in 
America,  England  and  Germany.  These  investigations  were 
conducted  by  the  charity  organization  societies  of  Baltimore, 
Buffalo  and  New  York  City,  the  associated  charities  of 
Boston  and  Cincinnati,  by  Charles  Booth  in  East  London, 
and  for  Germany  all  the  statements  of  Mr.  Bohmert  as  to 
seventy-seven  German  cities.  They  include  virtually  all  the 
facts  that  have  been  collected  by  trained  investigators,  un- 
biased by  any  theory.  From  these  figures  it  appears  that 
about  20  per  cent,  of  the  worst  cases  of  poverty  are  due  to 
misconduct,  and  about  75  per  cent,  to  misfortune.  Drink 
causes  only  ii  per  cent.,  while  lack  of  work  or  poorly  paid 
work  causes  nearly  30  per  cent. 

The  reason  why  so  many  people  who  have  only  super- 
ficially investigated  poverty  consider  intemperance  and  such 
weaknesses  the  main  cause  of  poverty,  is  that  often  before 
poverty  becomes  extreme  enough  to  drive  men  to  such 
charitable  relief  the  man  has  lost  hope  or  self-respect  or 
strength  of  will  and  has  taken  to  drink,  so  that  when  the 
charitable  find  him,  drink  has  affected  the  case.  But  the 
question  is,  what  sent  him  to  drink?  It  must  be  remem- 
bered, too,  that  it  is  the  weakest  and  worst  poverty  which 

151 


152 


PROHIBITION. 


solicits  alms,  so  that  charitable  people  see  the  worst  and 
weakest  side  of  poverty  and  hence  are  misled. 

The  best  poor  people  can  scarcely  be  driven  to  the  char- 
ity society.  Under  the  present  system,  too,  poverty  is  often 
caused  by  people  being  unwilling  to  tell  trade  lies,  or  submit 
to  wrong  conditions,  or  to  push  some  other  worker  out  of 
office,  acts  which  are  often  necessary  conditions  to-day  to 
getting  employment. 

Says  Ruskin : 

“In  a community,  regulated  by  laws  of  demand  and 
supply,  and  protected  from  open  violence,  the  persons  who 
become  rich  are,  generally  speaking,  industrious,  resolute, 
proud,  covetous,  prompt,  methodical,  sensible,  unimaginative, 
insensitive  and  ignorant.  The  persons  who  remain  poor 
are  the  entirely  wise,  the  reckless,  the  humble,  the  thought- 
ful, the  sensitive,  the  well-informed,  the  improvident,  the 
irregularly  and  impulsively  wicked,  the  clumsy  knave,  open 
thief  and  the  entirely  merciful,  just  and  godly  persons.” 

Some  people  are  therefore  poor  because  they  are  good. 
Even  when  the  poverty  is  caused  by  moral  weakness  and 
v^ice — what  causes  that?  Science  answers  almost  categori- 
cally : “Environment.”  Hence  it  may  be  said  that  poverty 
is  the  result  of  individual  and  social  causes,  and  that  the 
individual  causes  are  mainly  the  result  of  social  causes. 

All  evidence  worth  considering  goes  to  prove  that  pov- 
erty and  crime  are  both  results  of  forced  idleness  or  low- 
paid  labor.  As  a rule  men  who  are  steadily  employed  at 
some  productive  work  and  who  get  in  return  for  their 
labor  what  they  consider  to  be  a fair  share  of  the  product 
of  their  efforts  are  temperate  and  moral.  If  all  men  could 
feel  sure  of  steady  work  at  fair  pay  there  would  be  prac- 
tically no  need  for  policemen  or  temperance  societies. 

Poverty  and  crime  are  results  of  laws  which  men  have 
made,  and  we  will  have  both  so  long  as  these  laws  are  in 


INTEMPERANCE  AND  POVERTY. 


153 


operation.  It  is  not  the  fault  of  God  or  nature,  or  what- 
ever you  may  term  the  creative  cause,  that  many  men 
are  poor,  shiftless  and  intemperate.  The  fault  lies  with  the 
people,  and  with  them  rests  the  remedy  and  the  responsi- 
bility. When  the  people  are  wise  enough  to  remove  the 
cause  the  evil  will  disappear.  It  is  about  time  for  men 
to  stop  repeating  that  antiquated  lie  that  intemperance  is 
the  prime  cause  of  poverty,  and  take  up  the  study  of  how 
to  remedy  the  real  cause — enforced  idleness. 

In  general,  the  claim  is  just  that  poverty  is  a cause 
rather  than  a result  of  intemperance.  The  most  authorita- 
tive medical  writers  declare  that  where  there  is  want  of 
wholesome  food,  lack  of  pure  air  and  water  and  absence 
of  home  comforts  and  pleasure,  “an  unyielding  and  inex- 
orable law,  or  necessity,  compels  the  person  so  situated  to 
seek  relief  in  alcoholic  stimulant.”  A complete  proof  of  this 
is  cited  by  Dr.  Southwood  Smith,  a leading  physician  and 
philanthropist  of  England.  The  doctor  says : “In  Lambeth 
Square,  near  Waterloo  Road,  London,  a population  of  434 
souls  were  huddled  together.  One  person  in  five  was  dis- 
eased, and  fifty  and  sixty  per  thousand  annually  died.  The 
square  was  drained,  water  was  made  abundant,  and  used 
to  carry  away  what  formerly  remained  in  cesspools.  The 
changes  soon  appeared.  The  mortality  declined  to  thirteen 
per  thousand.  The  intemperate  became  sober,  and  the  dis- 
orderly well  conducted,  after  taking  up  their  abode  in  these 
healthful  dwellings. 

In  fact,  pauperism  has  little  or  nothing  to  do,  in  the 
aggi'egate,  with  the  question  of  license  or  prohibition,  but 
is  the  result  of  social  and  economic  conditions  coupled  with 
improvidence.  That  this  view  is  correct  is  further  shown 
by  the  fact  that  intemperance  increases  in  all  countries  in 
times  of  commercial  and  industrial  depression,  and  decreases 
when  work  and  the  means  of  support  are  abundant  and 
easily  obtained.  Italy  is  the  paradise  of  paupers,  yet  her 


154 


PROHIBITION. 


population  is  one  of  the  most  temperate  upon  the  globe. 
In  Spain  drunkenness  is  extremely  rare,  and  yet  the  number 
of  paupers  is  many  times  as  great  as  in  America  or  Eng- 
land, where  the  quantity  of  spirits  consumed  is  largely 
greater.  In  Mohammedan  countries,  where  wine  is  for- 
bidden by  the  Koran,  pauperism  exists  to  an  astonishing 
degree.  It  might  be  said  in  this  connection,  also,  that  the 
most  ardent  prohibitionist  will  hardly  claim  that  the  morals 
of  Turkey  with  all  its  prohibition  are  superior  to  those  of 
America  under  license.  In  Scotland  in  the  ninth  century 
the  houses  of  sellers  of  drink  were  torn  down,  their  goods 
confiscated,  the  men  themselves  banished,  and  the  penalty 
of  death  imposed  upon  all  who  should  violate  the  decree 
or  law  by  selling  drink.  Scotland  became,  within  a very 
short  time,  the  home  of  inebriety,  and  the  land  was  in  a few 
years  overrun  by  myriads  of  beggars  who  swarmed  in 
every  locality. 


Prokitition  and  Xi 


emperance 

BY  A.  J.  SUNSTEIN. 


The  difference  between  prohibition  and  temperance  is 
the  difference  between  force  and  education. 

Temperance  is  desirable  in  all  things,  and  is  a matter 
of  education.  It  is  the  exercise  of  the  will  under  training 
and  habit. 

It  presupposes  manliness  and  character,  and  recognizes 
personal  rights  even  in  the  use  of  liquors. 

Temperance  is  not  prohibition  which  says  there  shall  be 
no  use  of  liquors,  and  that  human  beings  have  too  little 
character  and  manhood  to  be  trusted  with  them,  therefore 
they  shall  not  be  tempted  in  this  territory  by  the  exposure 
of  liquors  for  sale. 

That  prohibition  is  not  temperance  is  proved  by  the  re- 
sults under  prohibition,  which  is  invariably  the  increase  of 
vile  dens  and  secret  resorts,  where  the  most  poisonous  con- 
coctions are  sold  under  the  most  degrading  surroundings, 
and  usually  under  the  protection  of  grafting  officials  of 
the  law. 

It  has  been  said  the  income  tax  will  make  a nation  of 
liars,  and  we  believe  prohibition  will  make  a nation  of 
sneaks. 

On  the  moral  question  involved  we  believe  in  educa- 
tion for  temperance  as  against  forceful  prohibition.  We 
believe  that  the  conviction  that  you  should  not  drink  to 


PROHIBITION. 


156 

excess  will  be  of  more  benefit  to  the  race  and  to  manly 
character  than  the  commiand  “you  shall  not  drink  at  all,” 
and  moreover  the  last  is  impossible  because  one  has  a right 
to  purchase  elsewhere  if  not  in  his  own  town. 

Aside  from  this,  however,  there  is  a tremendous  in- 
dustrial question  involved. 

It  is  said  that  no  less  than  a million  wage-earners 
would  be  thrown  out  of  work  by  prohibition. 

If  an  educational  movement  in  favor  of  temperance 
should  largely  revolutionize  the  liquor  traffic  it  would  be 
by  degrees  and  the  various  interests  would  adjust  them- 
selves naturally  to  new  conditions ; but  prohibition  if  suc- 
cessful would  cause  a panic,  and  we  have  had  enough  of 
panics. 

But  prohibition  will  not  be  successful.  It  has  not  been 
and  never  will  be. 

Maine  has  been  its  shining  light  for  many  years,  and 
has  also  been  notorious  for  the  ease  with  which  vile  whisky 
could  be  purchased  in  all  sections  of  the  State. 

Prohibition  means  to  go  behind  the  door  like  a sneak 
to  do  what  ought  to  be  done  openly,  if  at  all. 

Prohibition  will  suffer  a reaction,  but  the  cause  of  tem- 
perance will  progress. 


Present  American  Business  Con- 
ditions  in  Distilling  Industry 

BY  MORRIS  F.  WESTHEIMER,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  NATIONAL 
WHOLESALE  LIQUOR  DEALERS’  ASSOCIATION  OF  AMERICA. 

(Reprinted  from  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 
of  Political  and  Social  Science,  November,  1909.) 


Government  statistics  in  the  distilling  industry  are  ac- 
curately tabulated  and  promptly  furnished  to  all  applicants, 
thus  offering  to  any  one  desiring  to  study  them  the  means 
of  reaching  conclusions  to  an  extent  impossible  in  almost 
any  other  line  of  manufacture.  We  need  not,  therefore, 
indulge  in  any  surmises,  but  can  go  at  once  to  the  facts  and 
figures  contained  in  the  reports  of  the  Commissioners  of 
Internal  Revenue  in  Washington,  D.  C.  The  records  of 
the  United  States  Internal  Revenue  office  show  the  fol- 
lowing ; 

Prior  to  1900  the  largest  quantity  of  distilled  spirits 
tax-paid  and  withdrawn  for  consumption  in  any  one  year 
was  in  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1893,  during  which 
period  the  amount  was  97,424,825  gallons. 

The  financial  panic  and  the  following  depression 
brought  about  a gradually  decreasing  demand  until  we 
reach  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1896,  which  year 
shows  the  smallest  annual  quantity  tax-paid  in  a quarter 
of  a century,  i.  e.,  60,635,356  gallons;  a decrease  of  37 
per  cent. 


157 


158 


PROHIBITION. 


The  tax-payments  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1894,  show  87,087,618  gallons. 

Comparing  this  with  the  year  ending  June  30,  1896. 
60,635,356  gallons;  a reduction  of  30  per  cent. 

Let  us  compare  these  Government  statistics  with  pres- 
ent conditions ; 

Spirits  tax-paid  and  withdrawn  for  consumption  for 
the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1906,  122,617,943  gallons. 

Spirits  tax-paid  and  withdrawn  for  consumption  for  the 
fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1909,  114,799,465  gallons;  a 
decrease  of  6 per  cent. 

For  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1907,  134,031,066 
gallons. 

For  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1909,  114.799,465 
gallons. 

Decrease  in  consumption  due  to  commercial  depres- 
sion beginning  with  the  financial  panic  in  the  fall  of  1907, 
14  per  cent. 

It  is  evident  that  the  depression  in  general  business 
conditions  during  the  years  1907  and  1908  did  not  reduce 
the  consumption  of  spirits  as  greatly  as  did  the  hard  times 
of  1893  to  1896. 

Tax-paid  for  consumption  during  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1908,  119,703.594  gallons;  a decrease  as  com- 
pared with  1907  of  10.7  per  cent. 

The  United  States  Geological  Survey  gives  the  produc- 
tion of  coal  in  the  United  States  for  the  year  1907  as 
480,363,424  short  tons.  For  the  year  1908,  415,842,698 
short  tons;  a decrease  of  13.4  per  cent. 

Coal  being  an  accurate  barometer  of  general  manu- 
facturing conditions,  the  decrease  of  13.4  per  cent,  in  coal 
production,  as  compared  to  10.7  per  cent,  in  consumption 
of  spirits,  is  extremely  interesting.  A study  of  the  fol- 
lowing table  will  more  clearly  indicate  the  comparative 
effect  of  depressed  business  conditions,  following  the  panic 


PRESENT  BUSINESS  CONDITIONS. 


159 


in  1907.  (All  figures  are  taken  from  Governmental  re- 
ports) : 


1907. 

1 Production  of  pig  iron, 

long  tons 25,781,000 

1 Production  of  steel,  long 

tons  23,363,000 

^ Imports  of  sugar,  pounds. . . 4,391,839,975 

-Bank  clearings,  dollars 157,673,000,000 

1 Production  of  Coal,  short 

tons  480,363,424 

- Tax-payment  of  distilled 

spirits,  gallons  134,031,066 

1 Fiscal  year. 

- Calendar  year. 


Decrease 
1908.  per  cent. 

15,936,000  38.1 

15,000,000  35.7 
3,371,997,112  23.2 
127,755,000,000  19. 

415,842,698  13.4 

119,703,594  10.7 


The  statistical  abstract  of  the  United  States  gives  the 
per  capita  consumption  of  all  liquors  and  wines : 


For  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1888 14.65  gallons 

For  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1898 17.37  gallons 

For  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1907 23.54  gallons 

For  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1908 23.01  gallons 

THE  PROHIBITION  MOVEMENT. 

These  facts  are  all  the  more  striking,  impressive  and 
remarkable  in  view  of  the  widely  heralded  “Prohibition 
Wave,”  now  slowly  receding,  but  which  attained  its  greatest 
strength  in  1908.  They  indicate  beyond  dispute  that  legis- 
lative prohibition  instead  of  largely  reducing  the  quan- 
tity of  spirits  consumed— -as  contemplated  by  its  advo- 
cates— has  very  little,  if  any  effect  in  that  direction.  It 
has,  however,  reduced  the  quality  of  goods  consumed  and 
has  driven  the  retail  business  into  less  reputable  and  less 
responsible  hands.  Where  prohibition  prevails  there  will 
be  no  improved  demand  for  goods  of  the  higher  grades. 
Where  goods  are  selling  under  the  sanction  of  the  law, 
commercial  conditions  bring  keen  competition,  necessitating 
good  quality  and  small  profit  to  the  legitimate  dealer. 


i6o 


PROHIBITION. 


When  traffic  of  any  kind  is  carried  on  under  the  ban  of 
the  law,  these  conditions  are  reversed,  resulting  in  dimin- 
ished competition,  poor  quality,  and  larger  profits  to  the 
violator  of  the  law,  all  at  the  expense  of  the  consumer  and 
with  the  added  moral  damage  of  destroying  respect  for 
all  law. 

The  consumption  of  distilled  spirits  it  always  affected 
by  general  business  conditions.  With  the  tariff  settled, 
and  abundant  crops  assured,  there  will  be  a revival  and 
extension  of  manufacturing  in  many  lines,  which  will  in- 
clude a corresponding  revival  in  the  distilling  industry. 

EFFECT  OF  THE  RECENT  TARIFF  LEGISLATION. 

It  is  too  early  to  forecast  any  direct  result  of  the  new 
tariff  law.  The  quantity  of  liquor  imported  is  at  all 
times  very  small  in  comparison  with  home  production,  and 
in  character  such  importations  belong  largely  in  the  class 
of  the  higher  luxuries,  such  as  champagnes,  fine  cordials, 
bitters  and  other  special  preparations.  It  is  not  probable 
that  the  new  tariff  law  will  have  any  important  effect  upon 
home  production — certainly,  no  detrimental  effect. 

The  exportation  of  American  distilled  spirits  for  con- 
sumption abroad  has  never  reached  important  proportions ; 
this  is  partially  due  to  the  fact  that  the  growth  of  the 
business  in  this  country  has  been  so  steady  and  rapid  as 
to  make  it  unnecessary  for  the  American  distiller  to 
shoulder  the  expense  of  seeking  a market  abroad.  Further- 
more, the  exportation  of  distilled  spirits  has  been  handi- 
capped by  cumbersome  and  antiquated  revenue  and  cus- 
toms regulations. 

THE  GENERAL  OUTLOOK  FOR  THE  FUTL^RE. 

The  general  outlook  for  the  future  from  commercial 
and  financial  standpoints  has  seldom  been  better.  The 


PRESENT  BUSINESS  CONDITIONS.  i6i 

growing  crops  of  all  cereals  used  by  distillers  promise  to 
be  phenomenally  large  this  years.  This  means  raw  mate- 
rial at  fair  prices  for  the  distiller  and  abundant  purchasing 
power  for  the  consumer.  Prosperity  for  one  industry 
means  prosperity  for  all,  and  with  tariff  uncertainties  out 
of  the  way,  it  is  the  concensus  of  opinion  among  mer- 
chants and  manufacturers  in  all  lines  that  our  country  is 
on  the  eve  of  prosperous  times. 

x\nything  adversely  affecting  so  great  an  industry  as 
that  of  distilling  in  this  land  of  ours,  bears  with  almost 
equal  hardship  upon  the  collateral  trades  dependent  upon 
it.  The  forester  who  cuts  and  sells  stave  timber  for  bar- 
rels, the  iron  dealer  furnishing  hoops,  the  bottle  maker,  box 
manufacturer,  cork  and  cap  and  label  maker,  the  printer, 
the  lithographer,  the  cooper,  the  farmer  producing  corn, 
rye  and  barley,  the  malster,  the  coppersmith,  the  iron- 
worker and  distillery  builder,  and  innumerable  other  indus- 
tries dependent  upon  that  of  distilling,  are  all  equally  in- 
terested with  the  distiller  in  auguries  of  the  future. 

Over  all  of  these  there  lowers  at  the  present  time  the 
one  menace  of  confiscatory  and  destructive  legislation,  such 
as  has  been  enacted  recently  in  some  of  our  States,  as  a 
result  of  the  hysterical  and  emotional  prohibition  cam- 
paigns, conducted  under  the  auspices  of  the  Anti-Saloon 
League.  A notable  instance  is  furnished  by  recent  legis- 
lative enactments  in  Tennessee.  In  that  State,  since  the 
first  of  July,  1909,  the  sale  of  liquor  within  the  State  has 
been  practically  prohibited,  and  after  the  first  day  of  Janu- 
ary, 1910,  manufacture  is  absolutely  prohibited  even  for 
sale  outside  of  the  State.  Needless  to  say  this  is  practical 
confiscation  of  brewery  and  distillery  property  and  without 
one  penny  of  compensation  from  the  people  of  Tennessee, 
who  are  presumed  to  be  the  beneficiaries  of  such  confiscatory 
legislation. 

For  more  than  a century  of  national  life  the  distilling 


PROHIBITION. 


162 

industries  have  been  protected,  fostered  and  encouraged  by 
national  legislation.  The  space  accorded  me  by  your  invi- 
tation forbids  my  going  into  details  on  this  question.  So 
unique  and  revolutionary  in  America  is  the  present  tend- 
ency toward  confiscation  and  destruction  of  vested  rights 
and  property  interests,  that  it  might  well  be  the  theme  of 
future  contributions  to  your  volumes.  The  law  of  eminent 
domain  alone  justifies  the  taking  of  private  property  for 
the  public  good,  and  nowhere  and  at  no  time  should  this 
arbitrary  power  of  suppression  be  exercised  without  due 
compensation  to  the  owners.  If  all  the  people  of  Tennessee 
are  to  be  benefited  by  the  suppression  of  distilleries  and 
breweries  within  the  limits  of  that  State,  should  not  the 
people-  of  Tennessee  be  willing  to  pay  for  the  alleged  bene- 
fits thus  secured  to  them?  In  England,  when  it  was  re- 
cently proposed  to  reduce  the  number  of  licensed  public 
houses  (saloons)  there  was  no  suggestion  by  members  of 
Parliament  of  any  plan  which  did  not  include  full  com- 
pensation to  the  publicans  (saloon-keepers)  to  be  elim- 
inated, for  the  full  value  of  leases,  fixtures,  stock  on  hand, 
and  good  will. 

I anticipate  the  sophistry  with  which  this  protest  will 
be  met  by  the  Anti-Saloon  League.  They  will  tell  us : 
“We  do  not  confiscate  your  distilleries  and  breweries — we 
merely  forbid  you  to  operate  them.”  The  flour  mill  which 
is  forbidden  to  grind  wheat  is  as  valueless  an  asset  as  a 
railroad  prohibited  from  running  trains  over  its  rails. 

There  are  signs  of  an  awakening  among  the  owners  of 
property  of  all  kinds  in  the  face  of  this  destruction  of 
vested  rights  and  values — a confiscation  planned  and  car- 
ried out  at  the  behest  of  a league,  or  organization,  whose 
promoters  and  leaders  tell  us  that  it  is  the  ‘‘united  church 
forces  in  action.” 

The  leaders  of  this  movement  are  largely  ministers — 
men  consecrated  to  the  teaching  of  morality.  The  follow- 


PRESENT  BUSINESS  CONDITIONS.  163 


ing,  from  the  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  of  April  5,  1908,  is  in- 
teresting in  this  connection : 

“New  York,  April  4,  1908. — Chancellor  James  R.  Day, 
of  Syracuse  University,  made  a statement  to  the  New  York 
Methodist  Episcopal  Conference  to-day,  in  which  he  de- 
clared, on  behalf  of  Bishop  Moore,  that  the  bishop  was 
not  in  sympathy  with  the  barn-burners  of  Kentucky,  but 
that  the  bishop  felt  the  destn,:ction  of  the  tobacco,  in  view 
of  the  position  of  the  Methodist  Church,  to  be  a commend- 
able thing.  The  chancellor  said  that  the  bishop  did  not 
look  favorably  upon  the  destruction  of  the  barns  and  ware- 
houses containing  the  tobacco.” 

These  niceties  of  anarchistic  discriminations  are  inter- 
esting, but  they  make  faint  appeal  to  a property-owning, 
liberty-loving,  and  law-abiding  American  public. 

The  distilling  industry  in  the  United  States  is  of  vast 
proportions,  representing  hundreds  of  millions  of  invested 
capital.  Many  thousands  of  men  and  their  families  are 
directly,  or  indirectly,  dependent  upon  it  for  their  liveli- 
hood. The  immediate  extermination  of  their  means  of 
support  is  as  directly  threatened  as  is  the  property  of  the 
owners  of  hundreds  of  distilleries,  breweries,  cooperage, 
box  and  bottle  plants.  By  whom  is  this  destruction  and 
extermination  demanded?  Let  us  see.  In  The  Annals  of 
the  American  Academy  of  November,  1908,  appears  an 
article  contributed  by  Rev.  W.  M.  Burke,  California  State 
Superintendent  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  entitled  “The 
Anti-Saloon  League  as  a Political  Eorce,”  which  concludes 
as  follows : 

“Let  any  question  have  the  support  of  the  entire  evan- 
gelical church,  then  organize  this  force  for  action;  put 
into  the  field  four  hundred  and  fifty  keen,  bright,  able  men; 
let  them  draw  their  support  from  the  millions  who  are  in 
favor  of  the  objects  proposed,  and  you  can  create  and  or- 
ganise sentiment  enough  to  accomplish  almost  any  purpose 


164 


PROHIBITION. 


desired.  That  is  what  is  happening  in  the  political  arena 
to-day  as  against  the  open  saloon.  It  is  merely  the  united 
church  forces  in  action.” 

As  further  defining  the  attitude  and  methods  of  the 
Anti-Saloon  League,  the  following  quotation  from  an  in- 
terview with  the  Rev.  Purley  A.  Baker,  General  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  written  by  James  B. 
Morrow,  and  printed  in  the  Cincinnati  Enquirer  of  Sun- 
day, February  23,  1908,  is  significant : 

“You  must  remember  that  the  Anti-Saloon  League  is 
not  in  politics  as  a party,  nor  are  we  trying  to  abolish  vice, 
gambling,  horse-racing,  murder,  theft  or  arson.  The  gold 
standard,  the  unlimited  coinage  of  silver,  protection,  free 
trade  and  currency  reform  do  not  concern  us  in  the  least. 
In  no  instance  has  the  League  ever  nominated  a candidate 
for  public  office.  Nevertheless,  we  are  the  most  skillfully 
and  completely  organized  political  force  in  the  country.” 

In  the  same  interview  Rev.  Baker  further  informs  the 
public : “We  had  to  beat  eighty-seven  men  for  the  Legis- 
lature in  a certain  State  before  the  leaders  of  the  two 
political  parties  ceased  to  sneer  at  us.”  Lack  of  space  for- 
bids further  reference  to  vauntings  in  this  inter\dew  of 
the  work  done  by  the  “united  churches” — skillfully  organ- 
ized as  a “political  force”  in  electing  and  defeating  almost 
entire  State  Legislatures,  and  of  doing  and  undoing  State 
senators  and  members  of  Congress  in  the  effort  made  by 
the  “federated  churches”  to  control  the  reins  of  Govern- 
ment. Enough  has  here  been  quoted  to  make  evident  that 
commercially,  financially,  and  politically  we  are  confronted 
with  a new  problem  in  American  life. 

Men  more  competent  than  I am  to  analyze  this  problem 
assure  me  that  many  good  and  earnest  church  men  and 
women  deplore  the  fact  that  so  many  of  their  fellow- 
workers  are  being  misled  and  misrepresented  by  a majorit}’ 


PRESENT  BUSINESS  CONDITIONS.  165 


of  their  clergy,  who  have  been  swept  away  from  safe  moor- 
ings by  the  emotionalism  of  Anti-Saloon  League  methods. 

An  interesting  sermon  was  delivered  on  Sunday,  Au- 
gust 15,  1909,  in  St.  Paul’s  Church  at  Richmond,  Va.,  by 
the  Rev.  W.  E.  Evans,  D.  D.,  Rector  of  the  Church  of  the 
Advent,  of  Birmingham,  Ala.,  from  which  I quote : 

“A  fierce  political  contest  has  been  going  on  in  Ala- 
bama for  quite  a time.  It  was  not  the  question  of  tem- 
perance, but  of  prohibition.  To  preach  temperance  is  to 
preach  religion,  but  prohibition  is  politics.  Failing  to  make 
this  distinction,  certain  ministers  turned  their  place  of  wor- 
ship into  lecture  halls,  where  this  phase  of  politics  was 
discussed,  and  political  harangues — in  the  churches,  mark 
you — were  applauded  to  the  echo!  In  a paper  received 
only  day  before  yesterday,  I saw  that  crowds  of  ministers 
were  gathered  at  the  State  capitol,  and  were  lobbying  in 
the  interest  of  their  political  party.  What  is  the  impres- 
sion made  upon  sober,  thoughtful  minds.  Just  that  which 
St.  Paul  deprecated,  ‘the  ministry  is  blamed’  as  forsaking 
its  legitimate  sphere  and  obtruding  into  politics. 

“Yet,  I recall  that  several  years  ago,  when  Roman  Cath- 
olic priests  appeared  as  lobbyists  in  the  halls  of  Congress, 
the  Protestant  press,  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the 
other,  was  unanimous  in  protest,  and  I presume  it  ex- 
pressed the  feeling  of  the  Protestant  clergy  and  laity. 
These  priests  were  working  for  appropriations  for  their 
Indian  schools,  yet  against  them  the  newspapers  sounded  a 
trumpet  blast  of  indignation.  In  Alabama  it  is  a State 
capitol  that  is  besieged  by  crowds  of  ministers  using  the 
power  of  their  office  to  promote  a political  movement.” 

For  centuries  the  union  of  State  and  church  in  the 
countries  of  Europe  has  been  a source  of  unrest  and  con- 
tention. The  trend  there  has  been  toward  complete  sep- 
aration of  church  and  State.  Where  such  union  still  exists, 
for  instance,  in  England,  the  functions  of  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical authority  are  each  defined  and  limited.  The  church 


PROHIBITION. 


1 66 

there  is  respectful  in  its  attitude  toward  civil  authority.  It 
is  only  necessary  to  study  the  methods  and  utterances  of 
the  ..'Vnti-Saloon  League  leaders  in  this  country  to  see  that 
among  them,  at  least,  no  such  spirit  prevails  here. 

The  movement  here  appears  to  be  an  attempt  at  domina- 
tion of  civil  by  church  authority,  accomplished  by  seizing 
the  power  of  government,  through  the  medium  of  the  bal- 
lot, and  exercising  that  power  for  purposes  of  confiscation 
and  destruction,  aimed  at  any  and  all  things  standing  in 
the  path  of  the  “federated  churches”  working  as  a “skill- 
fully organized  political  force.” 

The  future  of  the  distilling  business  can  be  accurately 
foreseen  only  by  one  of  prophetic  powers,  far-seeing  enough 
to  determine  how  long  the  American  public  will  permit  this 
tendency  toward  church  supremacy  in  politics  to  work  un- 
checked. The  fact  can  not  be  too  strongly  emphasized  that 
no  property  is  safe  from  a menace  of  this  nature. 

FORECAST. 

As  bearing  strongly  upon  the  future  of  the  distilling  in- 
dustry, there  are  being  slowly,  but  surely,  evolved  from 
the  great  mass  of  suggestions,  coming  from  many  sides, 
well-defined  plans  for  the  regulation  of  the  retail  sale  of 
liquors  under  State  control,  which  will  doubtless  eliminate 
those  features  which  are  now  made  the  excuse  for  com- 
plaint and  attack  against  the  business  as  a whole.  The 
National  Wholesale  Liquor  Dealers’  Association  of  Amer- 
ica believes  that  public  sentiment  is  rapidly  shaping  itself 
in  opposition  to  prohibition  and  is  turning  towards  regula- 
tive license  laws. 

Based  on  the  sane  and  successful  laws  in  force  in  Penn- 
sylvania and  IMassachusetts,  the  license  plan  of  the  future 
will  no  doubt  provide  safeguards  which  will  embody  the 
following  features  for  the  control  of  sales  of  liquor  at 
retail ; 


PRESENT  BUSINESS  CONDITIONS.  167 


First:  The  character  of  the  applicant,  and  not  the 
fee,  should  be  the  determining  factor  in  granting  license. 

Second : Licenses  should  be  issued  by  a non-political 
board,  and  be  limited  in  number  and  based  upon  population. 

Third : A license  should  be  revoked  when  the  owner 
violates  the  law. 

Fourth : Where  owners  of  licensed  premises  are  voted 
out  of  business,  under  State-wide  or  county  option  laws, 
such  owners,  who  have  not  violated  the  law,  should  be 
compensated  for  the  loss  inflicted  upon  them  by  being 
forced  out  of  business. 

Fifth : Officers  of  municipalities  should  be  compelled  to 
enforce  all  laws,  and  laws  should  be  so  framed  as  to  re- 
move temptation  from  the  saloon-keepers  to  enter  into 
active  politics.  In  many  States  it  might  be  desirable  to 
include  laws  limiting  the  sale  of  liquors  to  unbroken  pack- 
ages, not  to  be  consumed  on  the  premises,  except  in  inns, 
hotels  and  restaurants.  I quote  from  the  platform  of  our 
association ; 

“It  is  true  that  in  the  growth  and  development  of  our 
industry,  in  common  with  all  others,  be  they  railroads, 
insurance,  or  banking,  excesses  have  crept  in  which  menace 
the  welfare  of  those  engaged  in  them.  It  is  as  unfair  to 
say,  as  it  is  impossible  to  achieve,  that  the  evils  can  be 
cured  only  by  destroying  the  industry. 

“It  is  our  firm  conviction  that  those  who  honestly  seek 
to  promote  the  cause  of  true  temperance  will  find  the  surest 
and  safest  method  in  the  continuance  of  the  licensed  sa- 
loon, conducted  under  proper  laws  and  reasonable  regula- 
tions strictly  enforced.” 

In  conclusion,  in  the  well-known  words  of  Patrick 
Henry,  “I  have  but  one  lamp  by  which  my  feet  are  guided, 
and  that  is  the  lamp  of  experience.  I know  of  no  way 
of  judging  of  the  future  but  by  the  past,”  and  so,  judging 
by  the  past,  I confidently  count  upon  a steady  revival  of 


PROHIBITION. 


1 68 

the  distilling  industry  commensurate  with  other  lines  of 
manufacture.  I hope  and  believe  that  the  “Prohibition 
Wave,”  so  often  erroneously  entitled  the  “Temperance 
Wave,”  will,  in  receding,  leave  in  its  wake  equitable,  fair 
and  right-minded  regulative  laws,  which  will  remove  the 
liquor  question  from  the  realm  of  politico-clerical  agitation. 


Atrakam  Lincoln  s 
Views 


Temperance 


Abraham  Lincoln,  with  his  love  of  his  fellow-man,  was 
a temperance  advocate,  but  he  believed  in  being  charitable 
in  an  effort  to  decrease  intemperance ; he  believed  in  con- 
verting the  individual  by  appealing  to  his  character  and 
in  a manner  to  win  his  confidence.  By  the  same  token  he 
was  opposed  to  driving  an  individual,  to  denouncing  him, 
to  cursing  and  abusing  him,  always  contending  “that  a drop 
of  honey  catches  more  flies  than  a gallon  of  gall.” 

In  a speech  delivered  by  Lincoln  before  the  Washing- 
tonian Society,  of  Springfield,  111.,  Lincoln  said: 

“Too  much  denunciation  against  dram-sellers  and  dram- 
drinkers  was  indulged  in.  This,  I think,  was  both  impolitic 
and  unjust.  It  was  impolitic,  because  it  was  not  much  in 
the  nature  of  man  to  be  driven  to  anything;  still  less  to  he 
driven  about  that  which  is  exclusively  his  own  business; 
and  least  of  all  where  such  driving  is  to  be  submitted  to  at 
the  expense  of  pecuniary  interest  or  burning  appetite.  When 
the  dram-seller  and  drinker  were  incessantly  told — not  in 
accents  of  entreaty  and  persuasion,  diffidently  addressed  by 
erring  man  to  erring  brother,  but  in  the  thundering  tones 
of  anathema  and  denunciation  with  which  the  lordly  judge 
often  groups  together  all  the  crimes  of  the  felon’s  life,  and 
thrusts  them  in  his  face  just  ere  he  passes  sentence  of  death 
upon  him — that  they  were  the  authors  of  all  the  vice  and 
misery  and  crime  in  the  land;  that  they  were  the  manu- 

169 


170 


PROHIBITION. 


facturers  and  material  of  all  the  thieves  and  robbers  and 
murderers  that  infest  the  earth ; that  their  houses  were  the 
workshops  of  the  devil,  and  that  their  persons  should  be 
shunned  by  all  the  good  and  virtuous,  as  moral  pestilences — 
I say,  when  they  were  told  all  this,  and  in  this  way,  it  is 
not  wonderful  that  they  were  slow,  very  slow,  to  acknowl- 
edge the  truth  of  such  denunciations,  and  to  join  the  ranks 
of  their  denouncers  in  a hue  and  cry  against  themselves. 

“When  the  conduct  of  men  is  designed  to  be  influenced, 
persuasion — kind,  unassuming  persuasion  should  ever  be 
adopted.” 


Liberty  vs.  Probibition 

BY  CLARENCE  DARROW. 


The  following  address  was  delivered  by  Mr.  Clarence 
S.  Darrow,  of  Chicago,  at  a public  meeting  held  in  New 
Bedford,  Mass.,  on  December  4,  1909.  This  city,  with 
Worcester  and  others,  changed  from  “dry”  to  “wet”  by  a 
large  majority  in  the  election  held  a fortnight  later. 

I am  going  to  talk  to  you  on  the  subject  of  prohibi- 
tion. Of  course  I know  that  the  good  people  who  are 
voting  no-license  tell  you  this  isn’t  a prohibition  cam- 
paign; that  is,  they  don’t  propose  to  forbid  anybody  from 
buying  liquor,  they  only  propose  to  forbid  anyone  from 
selling  it.  You  have  a right  to  buy  all  you  want,  but 
nobody  can  sell  it.  Now  that  is  prohibition  logic.  (Laugh- 
ter.) Perhaps  a drunken  man  might  understand  it,  but 
I don’t  know  who  else  would.  It  ought  to  be  pretty  plain 
to  the  average  man  who  doesn’t  try  to  fool  himself  that 
if  it  is  against  the  law  to  sell  something,  then  nobody  can 
buy  it  without  either  violating  the  law  or  getting  somebody 
else  to  violate  the  law,  which  isn’t  any  better,  and  not  quite 
so  good.  So  if  the  citizens  who  propose  to  forbid  a license 
in  these  towns  succeed,  and  the  law  is  enforced,  it  means 
that  nobody  can  sell  and  nobody  can  buy  it.  If  it  means 
anything  else,  it  is  a farce  and  a fraud  and  a humbug, 
pure  and  simple,  and  there  is  no  use  to  fool  about  the 
question  and  try  to  deceive  anybody,  even  yourself. 

171 


172 


PROHIBITION. 


So  this  question,  as  far  at  least,  as  a policy  of  govern- 
ment, is  a question  of  prohibition,  pure  and  simple, — at 
least  simple,  I don’t  know  how  pure  it  is.  (Laughter  and 
applause.)  You  are  going  to  be  called  on  to  vote  this 
town  dry  again.  You  can  probably  vote  the  town  dry, 
but  can  you  vote  the  people  dry?  Somehow  the  Lord, 
when  He  fashioned  this  Universe  and  created  man,  didn’t 
understand  the  job  as  well  as  the  prohibitionists  under- 
stand it,  and  He  left  mankind  to  stumble  along  and  do 
the  best  they  can.  If  the  Lord  had  been  given  the  advice 
of  the  prohibitionists  it  would  have  been  much  easier  and 
saved  us  a lot  of  trouble.  There  wouldn’t  have  been  any 
wickedness  in  the  world,  excepting  prohibition.  (Laugh- 
ter.) If  anything  went  wrong,  all  that  would  be  needed 
would  be  to  make  another  law  and  then  you  could  make 
people  right.  If  men  drank  too  much,  make  a law  and 
then  they  won’t  drink  too  much.  If  they  ate  too  much, 
make  a law  and  then  they  won’t  eat  too  much.  If  they 
don’t  go  to  church,  make  a law  and  then  you  will  fill  the 
churches.  If  they  don’t  go  to  the  right  church,  make 
another  law  and  head  them  in  the  direction  of  the  right 
church.  If  a boy  wants  to  have  any  fun  on  Sunday,  or  a 
man  who  works  hard  all  the  week  wants  to  go  to  a picnic 
on  Sunday,  make  a law;  then  he  won’t  go  to  the  picnic,  but 
will  go  to  church.  Now  the  Lord  didn’t  understand  His 
business  when  He  conceived  His  plan  of  peopling  the 
earth  with  men  and  women ; there  were  no  prohibitionists 
there  to  give  Him  any  advice,  so  He  simply  created  man 
and  left  him  here  with  all  the  infirmities  of  human  nature 
which  often  lead  him  wrong;  with  all  the  higher  feelings 
which  sometimes  lead  him  right. 

He  doubtless  understood  that,  after  all,  there  is  noth- 
ing that  counts  with  man,  excepting  character,  and  if  he 
hasn’t  got  the  character  to  take  care  of  himself,  then  he 
isn’t  worth  taking  care  of.  That  was  His  theor}'.  But 


LIBERTY  vs.  PROHIBITION. 


173 


it  isn’t  the  theory  of  the  prohibitionist.  If  a man  hasn’t 
got  the  character  to  take  care  of  himself,  then  we  have 
got  to  take  care  of  him  and  ruin  ourselves  doing  it. 

Now  I concede  the  honesty  of  these  people.  They 
are  honest,  they  are  high-minded,  they  have  been  willing 
to  preach  their  doctrine  in  season  and  out,  and  are  work- 
ing for  the  good  of  the  world.  They  ought  to  be  heard, 
they  ought  to  be  listened  to.  Every  man  that  has  a theory, 
no  matter  how  fanatical,  ought  to  be  allowed  to  air  it 
and  present  it.  All  I object  to  is  being  put  in  jail  if  I 
don’t  agree  with  the  other  fellow’s  theory.  I don’t  believe 
in  prohibition,  but  I am  not  a fanatic.  If  I had  a chance 
to  make  the  law  just  as  I wanted  to,  I wouldn’t  compel  a 
prohibitionist  to  drink  a pint  of  beer  every  morning  for 
breakfast.  (Laughter  and  applause.)  I think  that  would 
be  carrying  it  too  far,  and  I wouldn’t  pass  a law  to  make 
him  pour  down  his  throat  a glass  of  whisky  against  his 
will.  That  would  be  carrying  my  doctrine  too  far.  No 
more  will  I permit  him  to  say  to  me,  you  can’t  drink  a 
glass  of  beer  if  you  happen  to  want  it.  To  my  mind,  it 
is  exactly  the  same  thing,  and  I wouldn’t  stand  for  either 
one,  but  the  prohibitionist  says ; “Oh,  no,  you  can’t  make 
me  drink  beer  and  I won’t  let  you.” 

Well  now,  if  he  cuts  me  off  from  everything  he  doesn’t 
believe  in,  I don’t  know  what  I will  have  left.  It  is  a 
wise  and  fine  scheme.  The  people,  for  instance,  on  the 
front  row  of  seats  will  pick  out  the  things  they  like  to 
eat  and  drink,  and  they  will  say  to  the  people  on  the  second 
row : “These  are  the  things  you  have  to  eat  and  drink.” 
And  the  people  on  the  second  row  will  fix  up  a bill  of 
fare  for  the  people  on  the  third;  now  it  is  possible  the 
people  on  the  first  row  know  better  than  the  people  on 
the  second  what  is  good  for  them ; but  it  is  also  possible 
that  men  would  get  along  better  in  the  world  if  they  de- 
cided for  themselves  what  is  good  for  them.  They  may 


174 


PROHIBITION. 


sometimes  decide  wrong;  they  may  eat  something  or  drink 
something  that  doesn’t  agree  with  their  stomachs,  but, 
after  all,  human  tastes  are  not  the  same.  And  as  a general 
rule  it  is  a pretty  good  plan  to  mind  your  own  business. 
(Cheers  and  applause.)  That  is,  if  you’ve  got  any. 
(Laughter.)  Now  if  I were  fixing  up  a bill  of  fare  for 
people  to  eat,  I wouldn’t  let  anybody  eat  chicken ; I don’t 
like  it,  I can’t  understand  how  a sensible  man  can  eat  it. 
I would  rather  have  corned  beef,  but  I have  known  a good 
many  fairly  intelligent  people  who  eat  chicken,  and  if  I 
should  pass  a law  to  cut  them  out  of  chicken,  why  the 
clergymen  might  say  I was  aiming  at  them,  and  why  should 
I?  (Laughter.) 

We  have  inherited  some  traditions  of  liberty  in  this 
country.  They  are  not  new  to  Americans.  They  are  not  new 
even  to  English-speaking  people,  but  we  have  believed  that 
each  person  should  be  left  as  free  as  he  possibly  could  be, 
consistent  with  fairly  good  order  in  the  society  in  which 
he  must  live.  He  should  be  left  to  do  what  he  pleases, 
drink  what  he  pleases,  smoke  what  he  pleases,  liv'e  as  he 
pleases,  go  and  come  as  he  wants  to, — in  short,  manage 
his  own  life.  Unless  he  can  do  this,  he  may  as  well  be 
dead,  for  if  somebody  else  is  going  to  manage  it  for  you, 
you  won’t  get  much  fun  out  of  living.  (Laughter.) 

ETHICS  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

Now  there  are  two  or  three  things  in  the  beginning 
that  I want  to  speak  about.  I am  not  interested  in  whether 
you  are  going  to  sell  more  goods  in  New  Bedford  with 
whisky  or  without  it.  I don’t  care  a cent  for  that  kind 
of  argument.  I don’t  live  here  and  I don’t  think 
if  I did  I would  be  influenced  by  any  such  consideration. 
If  drinking  beer  is  in  the  categorj^  of  cutting  throats  and 
burglarizing  houses,  then  you  ought  to  be  ashamed  to  make 


LIBERTY  vs.  PROHIBITION. 


175 


money  out  of  it,  and  you  ought  to  go  prohibition  even  if 
the  grass  grows  in  the  streets.  I don’t  care  whether  you  get 
rich  or  get  poor  because  of  drink,  and  I don’t  think  any 
self-respecting  man  ought  to  care  whether  you  get  rich  or 
you  get  poor  because  of  it.  If  it  is  a business  which  fairly 
and  justly  comes  within  the  criminal  code,  then  you  can’t 
excuse  yourself  by  getting  money  out  of  it,  neither  the 
city  nor  the  nation.  The  nation  ought  not  to  get  revenue 
and  the  city  ought  not  to  get  revenue,  and  the  business  man 
ought  not  to  get  revenue,  if  drinking  beer  is  like  cutting 
throats  and  burglarizing  houses.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it 
is  not,  if  it  is  a part  of  my  liberty  which  I should  defend — 
and  when  people  stop  defending  their  liberty,  it  is  gone- 
then  it  doesn’t  make  any  difference  whether  we  lose  money 
out  of  it  or  whether  we  don’t  lost  money  out  of  it;  I ought 
to  stand  for  the  simple  right  to  manage  my  own  affairs, 
to  eat  and  drink  what  I please  without  calling  a town  meet- 
ing to  decide  on  the  bill  of  fare.  (Applause.) 

I don’t  propose  to-night  to  give  this  audience  any 
statistics.  I could  give  you  statistics  by  the  bushel,  and 
so  could  the  other  fellow.  You  can  get  statistics  on  both 
sides  of  any  question,  no  matter  what  that  question  is,  and 
generally  they  don’t  prove  what  they  pretend,  and  it  takes 
a very  wise  and  educated  man  to  handle  statistics,  and  like- 
wise a very  honest,  unprejudiced  and  unbiased  man  to 
handle  them  and  make  anything  out  of  them  excepting  some 
broad  generalizations.  Now  I haven’t  got  any  time  for 
them  myself.  I would  rather  discuss  principles.  I would 
rather  talk  about  things  that  every  person  in  this  house 
knows  and  understands,  which  can’t  be  juggled  or  fooled 
with,  and  which  appeal  to  your  human  nature  and  your 
innate  instincts,  as  to  right  and  wrong. 

Is  prohibition  right?  Is  it  right  in  theory,  or  is  it 
wrong.  Let’s  see.  Now  you  know  it  is  a great  deal  easier 
to  make  a prohibition  speech  than  it  is  to  make  one  against 


176 


PROHIBITION. 


prohibition.  I never  tried  to,  but  I have  listened  to  them 
and  the  prohibition  speakers  can  beat  us  to  death.  They 
don’t  know  the  reason,  but  I will  tell  them  if  there  are 
any  of  them  here.  I wouldnt’  want  to  hold  a debate  with  a 
prohibitionist  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  could  get  the 
audience  in  spite  of  himself.  I never  look  for  trouble 
that  way.  The  prohibitionist  appeals  to  the  feelings  and 
the  sentiments  and  the  passions  of  men.  You  know  it. 
Did  you  ever  hear  any  of  them  talk  sense?  (Laughter.) 
They  appeal  to  men’s  passions  and  feelings  and  prejudices. 
And  when  you  do  that  you  have  got  your  audience,  and 
when  you  talk  to  a man’s  judgment  and  reasoning,  that 
is  a hard  job,  I don’t  care  whether  it  is  in  New  England 
or  in  Chicago. 

There  are  some  things  that  have  been  said  on  both 
sides  which  I regard  as  somewhat  foolish,  and  I want  to 
go  away  leaving  you  the  impression  that  I meant  to  deal 
honestly  with  this  subject,  as  I intend.  I may  be  mistaken 
about  my  judgment,  many  times  I have  been,  and  you  are 
the  ones  to  decide  it.  I don’t  have  to  live  here,  I can  get  a 
drink  in  Chicago  any  time.  (Laughter.)  Then,  besides, 
I don’t  care  much  for  it.  I never  cared  anything  for  it 
until  this  prohibition  movement  set  in.  (Laughter.) 

I don’t  believe  that  alcohol  is  a food ; I don’t  believe 
that  men  need  beer  or  whisky  or  alcohol  in  any  form,  and 
I don’t  propose  to  argue  it.  I am  willing  to  concede  that 
beer  and  wine  and  whisky  are  just  good  for  one  thing. 
That  is,  that  they  taste  good  going  down.  That  is  all 
there  is  of  it,  excepting,  of  course,  for  mechanical  and 
sacramental  purposes,  and  I don’t  know  much  about  their 
use  there,  so  I won’t  discuss  that.  You  have  a right  to 
use  them  for  that  even  in  a dr}''  town,  but  aside  from  that 
they  taste  good  going  down;  that  is,  they  taste  good  to 
some  people.  There  are  some  people  who  say  they  don’t 
taste  good  not  only  to  them,  but  to  anybody  else — of  course. 


LIBERTY  vs.  PROHIBITION. 


177 


they  know ! They  are  wise,  and  they  know  what  a well- 
developed,  normal  appetite  is,  but  I wouldn’t  trust  them. 
Sometimes  people  are  color-blind  in  their  tastes. 

I don’t  believe  for  a moment  that  the  human  system 
needs  alcohol  in  any  form.  But  what  of  it?  Is  that  any 
reason  for  not  having  it?  We  have  a great  many  things  we 
don’t  need,  as  I will  show  you  a little  further  on.  The  fact 
is  that  none  of  us  are  interested  in  the  things  we  need. 
Anybody  can  get  the  things  they  need;  you  can  get  them 
at  the  poor-house  and  not  work  at  all.  It  is  the  things  we 
don’t  need  that  everybody  is  after.  It  is  the  theatres  and 
the  good  food  and  the  good  drink  and  the  automobiles  and 
the  vacations,  the  things  we  don’t  need,  that  we  are  all 
working  for,  which  make  life  worth  living.  “You  fellows 
can  have  the  necessities,  I will  take  the  luxuries !”  That 
is  the  way  it  has  always  been  between  the  working  man 
and  the  fellow  that  don’t  work, — that  is  the  reason  I don’t 
work.  If  anybody  is  satisfied  with  the  things  he  needs, 
that  is  about  what  he  will  get,  and  he  won’t  need  much 
at  that. 

Now  this  question  does  not  require  very  much  discus- 
sion. I think  I can  state  our  side  of  the  question  in  about 
ten  or  fifteen  sentences.  If  I am  born  free,  or  become 
free  by  act  of  law,  and  if  I am  of  age  and  able  to  look 
after  my  own  business  and  haven’t  any  guardian  and  can 
buy  a horse  or  sell  a farm,  then  I ought  to  be  able  to  order 
my  dinner  at  the  hotel  and  say  what  I want  to  eat  and 
what  I want  to  drink. 

It  is  one  of  the  most  primitive  wants  and  one  of  the 
most  primitive  desires  and  if  I can’t  settle  for  myself  what 
I want  to  eat  and  drink  and  wear,  where  I want  to  live  and 
how  I want  to  live,  then  I haven’t  got  very  much  liberty, 
after  all,  and  freedom  is  very  much  of  a dream.  If  I am 
free  by  the  laws  of  my  country,  I ought  to  know  whether 
I want  to  drink  beer  or  coffee.  Probably  both  are  some- 


178 


PROHIBITION. 


what  injurious — cofifee  much  more  so  than  beer.  But  it 
is  my  own  body  I am  taking  a chance  on  all  the  while  and 
nobody’s  else.  It  isn’t  for  me  to  prove  my  right  to  do  it. 
The  fact  that  I live  and  breathe  in  a country  consecrated 
to  individual  liberty  is  enough.  I have  the  right  to  do 
it  because  I am  a man,  and  a man  who  lives  under  a gov- 
ernment where  people  are  supposed  to  be  rulers  of  them- 
selves, instead  of  their  fellow-men.  And  that  is  all  there  is 
to  it.  If  a man  tells  me,  “You  can’t  drink  beer,”  then  it 
is  up  to  that  man  to  give  the  clearest  and  most  explicit 
reason  why  my  liberty  should  be  curtailed.  It  isn’t  for  me 
to  prove  my  right  to  drink  beer  any  more  than  my  right 
to  breathe  air  or  drink  water.  I prove  them  both  by  the 
same  logic  and  by  the  same  common  instincts  which  move 
all  men. 


CRIME  AND  DRINK. 

What  excuse  has  the  prohibitionist  to  offer  that  the 
drinking  of  beer  or  any  intoxicating  liquor  is  a crime,  and 
that  men  should  be  forbidden  it  or  sent  to  jail  if  they  have 
it?  They  have  the  same  excuses  to-day  that  they  had  forty 
years  ago;  they  tell  you  that  beer  and  whisky  and  wine 
are  responsible  for  most  of  the  crimes  of  the  world,  or  a 
large  part  of  the  crime  of  the  world.  They  say  that  intoxi- 
cating liquor  produces  crime ; produces  poverty ; produces 
death ; produces  misery,  and  for  that  reason  it  should  be 
forbidden  by  law.  That  was  the  indictment  then,  and  that 
is  the  indictment  to-day. 

Is  liquor  responsible  for  any  large  part  of  the  crime 
of  the  world?  Is  it  responsible  for  the  men  in  jail?  Has 
the  man  in  the  penitentiary  or  the  man  whom  society  has 
singled  off  as  criminal,  been  made  so  by  rum?  Now  when 
I speak  of  criminals,  of  crime,  I don’t  mean  a plain  case 
of  drunk,  where  a man  gets  too  much  liquor  and  is  locked 
up  for  the  night,  simply  because  he  got  too  much  liquor — 


LIBERTY  z/j.  PROHIBITION. 


179 


that  is  not  a crime  in  any  sense.  If  men  were  arrested 
when  they  eat  too  much,  the  same  as  they  are  when  they 
drink  too  much,  about  half  the  best  citizens  in  town  would 
spend  every  night  in  jail.  (Applause.) 

But  when  I speak  of  criminal  conduct,  I speak  of  crime, 
such  as  has  been  denounced  by  the  law  and  by  people 
always  as  criminal.  Is  whisky  responsible  for  it?  Now 
I will  give  you  a few  facts  which  appeal  to  your  own  expe- 
rience and  which  show  how  false  and  untrue  this  state- 
ment it.  It  is  hard  to  gather  statistics  of  crime  or  statistics 
of  any  sort  and  prove  that  they  are  true,  but  I can  give 
you  some  facts.  First  of  all,  the  men  who  fill  our  jails  and 
our  penitentiaries  come  from  one  class  and  only  one, — that 
is  the  poor.  Our  jails,  whether  in  Massachusetts  or  in 
the  West  or  in  Europe,  are  filled  with  one  class,  and  they 
are  built  for  one  class,  and  that  is  the  poor.  Here  and 
there  and  once  in  a while  some  rich  man  is  caught,  but 
only  enough  to  show  the  exception  which  proves  the  rule, 
for  when  a rich  man  is  sent  to  jail,  he  isn’t  sent  there  for 
drink,  but  because  he  wasn’t  rich  enough.  The  jails  and 
the  penitentiaries  all  over  the  world  are  built  for  the  poor. 
Now  let  me  ask  you  one  question  which  settles  all  of  this. 
Did  you  ever  know  any  rich  people  to  drink?  It  can’t  be. 
Because  if  they  did  they  would  be  in  jail  or  the  peniten- 
tiary, for  drink  produces  all  the  crime  in  the  world.  Why 
to  hear  these  wise  philosophers  stir  up  the  passions  and 
feelings  of  men,  you  would  think  only  the  poor  drank. 
Now,  as  a plain  matter  of  fact,  beer  or  whisky  is  like 
almost  everything  else  in  the  world, — all  of  it  is  produced 
by  the  poor  and  the  best  of  it  is  consumed  by  the  rich. 
They  have  plenty  of  time  and  plenty  of  money  to  drink 
with,  and  there  are  a lot  of  poor  people  who  are  too  poor 
to  drink. 

A great  philosopher  and  historian,  Thomas  Buckle,  who 
wrote  the  first  part  of  “The  History  of  Civilization  in  Eng- 


i8o 


PROHIBITION. 


land,”  made  long  observations  extending  over  long  pe- 
riods of  time  in  all  countries  and  he  showed  conclusively 
that  the  number  of  people  in  jail  rose  and  fell  every  year 
just  as  the  price  of  food  rose  and  fell.  (Cheers.)  When 
bread  was  dear,  it  meant  that  more  people  went  to  jail; 
when  bread  was  cheap,  fewer  people  went  to  jail.  He 
also  showed  what  every  man  who  has  honestly  studied 
this  question  has  found  out  since — not  what  prohibitionist 
orators  have  found  out,  they  never  find  out  anything — that 
more  men  go  to  jail  in  winter  than  in  summer.  Ever  hear 
any  prohibitionist  say  that?  They  don’t  know  it,  and  if 
they  knew  it  they  wouldn’t  know  what  it  meant,  and  if  they 
knew  what  it  meant,  they  wouldn’t  tell  you.  There  are 
more  people  in  the  jail  in  the  winter  than  in  the  summer 
because  work  is  scarce. 

I will  tell  you  something  else — more  people  go  to  jail 
in  hard  times  than  in  good  times.  The  poor  man  goes  to 
jail  in  winter;  when  the  sun  comes  out  in  the  spring  and 
work  becomes  plentiful,  he  conies  out  of  jail  because  he 
can  live  outside  easier  than  he  can  inside.  He  is  governed 
by  natural  law,  nothing  more  or  less.  You  may  take  a 
hundred  cattle  and  place  them  in  a field  and  if  the  feed 
is  good  they  will  stay  there,  but  let  the  feed  get  short, 
and  they  will  mighty  soon  learn  to  jump  the  fence  if  they 
have  any  brains  at  all.  So  it  is  with  people.  Under  this 
system  of  society,  where  a few  men  own  the  coal  and  the 
iron  and  the  timber  and  the  land  and  the  railroads  and 
have  monopolized  all  the  means  of  production  and  distribu- 
tion, the  great  mass  of  men,  having  nothing  to  sell  but 
their  labor,  are  living  close  to  the  line  of  want.  They  are 
living  where  sickness,  misfortune,  accident,  loss  of  a job, 
drive  them  to  want.  Some  of  them  are  less  intelligent 
than  others,  but  there  is  always  a ver}'  narrow  line  that 
separates  the  lawful  from  the  unlawful,  and  often  mis- 
fortune or  loss  of  work  causes  these  poor  unfortunates  to 


LIBERTY  PROHIBITION. 


i8i 


step  over  the  line  between  lawful  conduct  and  unlawful 
conduct,  and  they  fill  our  penitentiaries  and  jails.  Then, 
too,  there  are  people  who  commit  crimes, — crimes  of  feel- 
ing and  passion,  of  hatred  and  revenge  and  jealousy,  which 
have  ever  moved  the  hearts  of  men. 

Let  me  give  you  a few  illustrations  that  may  appeal 
to  your  experience.  Tell  me  that  crime  is  produced  by 
Rum ! We  have  had  three  Presidents  of  the  United  States 
assassinated : not  one  of  the  three  assassinations  had  as 
much  relation  to  liquor  as  the  change  of  the  moon,  not 
one!  You  have  read  of  the  murder  cases  all  over  New 
England,  New  York,  and  the  United  States.  You  can 
scarcely  recall  one  that  had  any  sort  of  relation  to  liquor, 
no  more  than  to  food.  They  were  due  to  the  passions  and 
feelings  and  hatreds  of  men  and  of  women ; and  had  no 
relation  whatever  to  whisky,  and  still  orators  keep  repeating 
over  and  over  again  that  old  story,  that  whisky  is  respon- 
sible for  the  crime  of  the  world. 

How  do  these  people  find  it  out?  Why  I know  some- 
thing about  criminals,  so-called ; I know  something  about 
them  because  I have  seen  them  and  I know  them  and  I 
know  something  about  myself,  and  all  of  us  are  partly 
criminal  and  partly  good.  Where  do  you  suppose  they  get 
their  information?  They  don’t  need  any  information,  to 
start  with.  They  just  say  things,  and  they  have  got  it, 
where?  Do  they  get  their  statistics  out  of  the  jails?  Now 
STATISTICS  ARE  DANGEROUS.  They  are  still  more  dangerous 
when  they  come  out  of  a jail,  and  doubly  dangerous  when 
they  come  out  of  the  jail  through  prohibition  speakers,  and 
you  can’t  depend  upon  them  at  all.  How  do  they  get 
them?  A poor  man  is  locked  up  in  jail;  nobody  comes 
to  see  him,  he  looks  over  across  the  court-yard  and  sees  a 
friendly  visitor  coming  toward  him,  and  he  can  tell  who 
he  is  a block  away.  He  knows  he  is  a prohibitionist  be- 
cause he  has  a face  as  long  as  a telegraph  pole.  The 


PROHIBITION. 


182 

friendly  visitor  says  to  him,  “My  good  man,  how  did  you 
get  in  here?”  And  he  says:  “Rum!”  Right  off  quick. 
If  he  said  beefsteak  the  friendly  visitor  would  put  it  down 
as  “Rum”  anyway,  and  tell  him  he  was  criminal  and  a liar, 
too.  (Laughter.) 

But  suppose  he  answered  it  right,  then  what?  I have 
gathered  statistics  in  jail.  I have  had  something  to  do  with 
the  law.  I have  been  at  it  a long  while,  and  have  tried  a 
good  many  criminal  cases.  But  I never  defended  a guilty 
man  in  all  my  life.  (Laughter.)  Now  you  don’t  believe 
it.  Well,  I will  tell  you  how  I know.  I asked  them  and 
they  said  they  weren’t;  they  said  they  were  innocent.  Why, 
you  go  in  there  and  see  one  of  them  and  he  is  charged 
with  stealing  a twenty-dollar  gold  piece ; he  would  say : 
“I  was  going  down  town  for  a loaf  of  bread  and  some 
fellow  came  out  of  an  alley  and  he  shoved  a twenty-dollar 
gold  piece  in  my  pocket  and  the  policeman  came  along  and 
took  me,  and  the  other  fellow  ‘done’  it  and  I didn’t  do  it.” 
And  if  there  isn’t  anybody  else  in  the  world  it  can  be 
charged  to,  there  is  always  one,  and  that  is  Rum ! Rum ! 
And  when  you  say  Rum  did  it,  why,  every  prohibitionist 
in  the  country  will  say,  “Amen ! How  glad  we  are,  it 
gives  us  more  statistics.” 

We  don’t  know  much  about  crime.  Ordinary  men  are 
educated  to  believe  that  a criminal  is  in  some  day  different 
from  other  men.  He  isn’t.  It  may  be  that  his  intentions 
are  as  good  as  ours.  I could  take  any  one  in  this  house 
who  never  knew  anything  about  crime  whatever,  to  a 
penitentiary  on  a Sunday  morning,  lead  him  into  the  chapel 
and  upon  on  the  platform.  Once  on  the  platform,  look  at 
the  sea  of  faces  before  you.  If  you  never  had  had  any  expe- 
rience, you  would  know  that  these  people  were  criminals. 
You  would  know  it  from  their  misshapen  heads,  you  would 
know  it  from  their  starved  bodies.  You  can  cure  crime 
in  one  way,  and  only  one.  Abolish  monopoly ! Give  men 


LIBERTY  z/j.  PROHIBITION. 


183 


an  opportunity  to  live!  Let  no  man  beg  for  a job!  De- 
stroy poverty ! Give  men  light  and  air  and  food,  and  the 
jails  will  vanish  and  be  a nightmare  of  the  past!  (Pro- 
longed applause.) 

But  to  talk  about  the  responsibility  of  Rum  is  the  idle 
chattering  of  children.  The  one  great  cause  of  crime, 
the  one  great  cause  since  the  world  began  is  poverty,  and 
if  you  want  to  abolish  crime,  abolish  poverty,  and  until 
you  abolish  poverty  you  can’t  abolish  crime!  But  the  pro- 
hibitionist says : “All  right,  poverty  is  responsible  for  crime, 
and  whisky  is  responsible  for  poverty.”  And  there  you 
are  right  where  you  started. 

Is  he  any  nearer  right  in  this?  Let  me  ask  again  this 
question.  Did  you  ever  know  of  any  rich  man  who  drank. 
It  can’t  be,  because  they  would  get  poor.  (Laughter.) 
There  are  a whole  lot  of  men  who  manage  to  consume  a 
great  deal  of  champagne  that  other  people  have  made, 
that  haven’t  yet  got  poor.  I have  no  doubt  that  champagne 
is  responsible  for  some  of  the  poor  man’s  poverty.  But 
it  is  not  the  champagne  that  he  drinks,  but  the  champagne 
the  other  fellow  drinks.  It  is  the  champagne  he  makes 
for  the  rich. 

WHAT  CAUSES  POVERTY? 

Does  drink  cause  poverty?  Let’s  see.  Why  does  it 
cause  poverty,  and  how  do  these  gentlemen  prove  it?  They 
find  a poor  man  that  drinks,  and  if  a man  drinks  and  is 
poor,  then  drink  makes  him  poor.  If  they  find  a rich 
man  in  an  automobile  that  drinks,  then  the  drink  ought 
to  make  him  rich  because  he  drinks  and  is  rich.  If  you 
see  a man  who  is  poor,  and  that  man’s  breath  smells  of 
whisky.  Oh ! Oh ! He  is  poor  because  he  drinks ! All 
he  needs  to  do  is  to  close  his  ears  to  the  song  of  the  agi- 
tator and  get  in  behind  the  prohibition  procession,  and  he 
will  get  richl 


184 


PROHIBITION. 


Men  may  make  mistakes  in  spending  their  money,  prob- 
ably often  do,  they  make  bigger  mistakes  when  they  don’t 
spend  it — but  they  make  some  mistakes  in  the  way  they 
spend  it.  I have  known  men  to  spend  money  for  whisky 
when  I think  they  ought  to  have  spent  it  for  something 
else.  I have  known  men  to  buy  IMerry  Widow  hats  for 
their  wives  when  I think  they  should  have  bought  some- 
thing else  for  it.  Suppose  the  women  get  together  to 
close  up  all  the  saloons,  to  save  your  money,  what  is  the  mat- 
ter with  the  men  getting  together  to  shut  up  all  the  mil- 
linery stores  to  save  your  money?  And  when  a man  buys 
a great  big  schooner  of  beer  for  a nickel  and  at  the  same 
time  his  wife  has  a hat  covered  with  feathers  and  wood- 
chucks and  carrots  (laughter)  and  things  that  cost  $20, 
you  are  poor  because  you  bought  the ' schooner  of  beer. 

I have  known  people  to  be  poor  because  they  gave  too 
much  to  the  church.  I have  known  people  to  be  poor 
because  they  hired  lawyers.  You  can  get  poor  for  any 
old  cause ; but  let  us  look  at  this  question — I don’t  want  to 
omit  anything. 

A man  who  talks  to  the  poor  man  about  getting  rich 
by  not  drinking  beer  is  insulting  the  poor  man’s  intel- 
ligence, and  he  never  read  or  studied  anything  himself  in 
his  life  or  he  would  have  seen  it.  Now  the  poor  people 
we  will  say  spend  money  liberally  for  beer.  There  are 
very  few  of  them  would  spend  one-tenth  part  of  their 
wages  for  beer,  but  suppose  they  spend  one-sixth  or  one- 
fifth.  The  food  bill  is  a big  bill  and  I will  undertake  to 
say,  as  poor  as  the  poor  man  is,  there  isn’t  one  of  them 
that  doesn’t  waste  three-fourths  of  the  money  he  spends 
for  food.  According  to  their  theor)",  the  poor  man  has 
one  business,  that  is,  to  keep  well  and  strong  so  he  can 
work;  that  is  all,  that  is  what  he  is  for.  So  far  as  health 
and  strength  and  ability  to  work  are  concerned,  you  waste 
three-fourths  of  the  money  you  spend  for  food.  Why  just 


LIBERTY  z/j.  PROHIBITION. 


185 


think  of  it!  Take  your  stomach  and  load  it  up  with  pie 
and  cake  and  liver  and  tea  and  coffee,  and  what  is  going 
to  happen  to  you?  You  are  shortening  your  life  and  you 
only  eat  because  it  tastes  good  going  down.  You  don’t 
need  butter  on  your  bread,  your  ancestors  didn’t  have  it, 
and  your  children  won’t  have  it  either  if  you  follow  the 
prohibitionists  in  their  theories.  You  waste  money  on  your 
clothes,  you  don’t  need  collars  and  neckties ; they  are  purely 
ornamental.  Women  don’t  need  fur  and  feathers  and  silks. 
They  are  ornamental.  You  could  live  in  a cheaper  house, 
you  could  save  three-fourths  of  your  money.  Now  let  me 
tell  you.  Suppose  you  cut  out  meat  and  save  a half  of 
your  food  bill ; do  any  of  you  think  you  would  get  that 
money?  If  you  do,  you  had  better  guess  again. 

THE  QUESTION  OF  WAGES. 

How  are  wages  fixed?  A man  may  pin  a little  oil 
lantern  on  his  cap  and  go  down  a thousand  feet  into  the 
earth  in  a cage  and  work  all  day  with  the  rocks  falling  in 
about  him,  breathing  miner’s  asthma  into  his  lungs  until 
he  dies  an  early  death,  and  he  may  get  $1.50  a day  and  he 
may  earn  $10  a day,  for  his  sacrifice  of  life  and  health  and 
the  expenditure  of  his  strength.  His  wages  are  not  fixed 
by  what  he  earns.  They  are  fixed  by  several  great  laws 
which  govern  your  condition  and  mine.  Another  man  may 
sit  at  his  desk,  he  may  be  a lawyer;  he  may  go  to  his 
office  at  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning  and  work  two  or  three 
hours  and  go  home  and  get  a hundred  dollars  for  his  day’s 
work.  His  wages  are  not  fixed.  Or  a man  may  preach  a 
sermon  once  a week,  a short  one, — possibly  the  shorter  the 
better — (laughter)  and  he  may  get  ten  times  as  much  as  a 
miner.  There  is  no  way  of  fixing  what  he  earns;  he  gets 
what  he  can.  Or  a man  may  be  a stockbroker  and  he 
may  make  a turn  in  watered  stock  or  sell  something  that 


PROHIBITION. 


1 86 

he  doesn’t  own,  and  he  may  make  $500,000  in  a day.  Just 
because  he  can!  There  is  no  law  that  fixes  it,  there  is  no 
relation  between  what  a man  earns  and  what  he  gets,  no 
necessary  relation.  Wages  are  governed  by  several  laws, 
one  being  the  supply  and  demand  of  labor.  When  stock- 
brokers get  as  plentiful  as  miners,  they  can’t  get  any  more 
wages.  When  preachers  and  lawyers  get  as  plentiful  as 
miners,  they  can’t  get  any  more  wages.  I wouldn’t  trade 
jobs  with  you  people  for  the  same  money.  Of  course,  I 
know  we  fellows  who  live  by  our  wits  are  very  fond  of 
telling  what  a hard  job  we  have,  but  it  is  a lie.  It  is  easier 
to  live  by  your  wit  than  by  your  muscle — you  don’t  get 
so  tired.  Wages  are  fixed  by  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand, and  fixed  by  another  law.  There  is  a law  govern- 
ing wages  which  says  that  wages  tend  to  come  down  to 
the  lowest  price  that  will  keep  men  alive  and  permit  them 
to  propagate  their  kind.  They  have  to  be  kept  alive  in 
order  to  do  the  rich  man’s  work,  and  they  have  to  raise  a 
family  so  that  the  rich  people  in  the  next  generation  can 
have  their  work  done.  And  wages  can’t  go  beyond  that 
point,  the  point  that  will  keep  men  alive  and  permit  them 
to  propagate  their  race.  When  you  say  keep  them  alive, 
it  means  keep  them  alive  under  the  conditions  in  life  in 
which  they  live.  And  every  effort  of  the  working  man 
should  be, — every  effort  of  the  working  men  of  Europe 
and  America,  to  give  their  energy  and  strength  and  mind 
towards  improving  their  conditions  in  life.  Is  there  any 
doubt  about  it?  Why  if  that  isn’t  true,  then  nothing  is 
true  that  your  unions  have  taught  you,  nothing  is  true  that 
your  friends  have  said,  nothing  is  true  that  the  great  polit- 
ical economists  and  philosophers  who  really  loved  the  poor 
have  ever  said.  Men  are  obliged  to  use  every  means  in 
their  power  to  keep  up  their  standard  of  living  because  it 
is  difficult  to  reduce  wages  below  the  standard  of  living. 
In  Italy  men  can  live  on  macaroni  and  a little  wine  and 


LIBERTY  vs.  PROHIBITION. 


187 


do  their  work,  and  that  is  their  standard  of  living,  and 
wages  hover  around  it,  although  they  have  wine  which  is 
cheap  and  plentiful,  and  about  the  only  thing  that  tastes 
good  to  an  Italian  laborer  that  he  ever  sees  or  feels.  In 
Russia  they  can  live  on  some  cheap  soup ; all  over  Europe 
the  poor  man  gets  along  without  meat.  He  can’t  afford 
it;  he  may  eat  tripe  and  entrails  and  stuff  that  the  rich 
men  throw  away,  but  he  can’t  eat  anything  the  rich  man 
wants,  he  has  to  take  whatever  is  left,  as  laborers  have  to 
take  what  is  left,  and  there  is  mighty  little  left. 

The  working  men  came  here  where  there  was  oppor- 
tunity, and  here  they  have  established  a standard  of  living 
which  is  higher  than  the  European  or  the  Asiatic  and  they 
have  learned  to  have  fairly  good  clothes.  They  have 
learned  to  go  to  the  theatres.  They  have  learned  to  have 
meat;  to  have  something  to  drink,  to  have  some  of  the 
luxuries  of  living  which  the  rich  have  always  claimed  for 
themselves.  Now  they  say,  you  better  give  up  some  of 
them  and  save  your  money.  If  you  give  them  up,  you 
give  them  up  forever,  and  you  get  nothing  whatever  in 
their  place. 

You  know  about  the  history  of  trade  unionism;  it  has 
been  a hard  fight  to  improve  the  condition  of  men.  This 
world  has  been  taken  by  the  strong.  Way  back  your  an- 
cestors began  your  fight.  The  early  trade  unionists  met 
in  the  woods,  and  among  the  rocks  and  waste  places;  they 
hid  their  records  in  the  sand  and  caves ; they  were  sent  to 
jail  if  two  of  them  came  together  and  agreed  with  each 
other  to  get  higher  wages.  They  would  like  to  do  the 
same  thing  again  and  are  doing  the  same  thing  again 
in  free  America.  Step  by  step  the  unions  have  fought 
this  fight.  Step  by  step  they  have  fought  for  the  right 
to  be  men.  They  have  fought  for  the  food  the  rich 
have,  they  have  fought  for  the  clothing  and  shelter  for 
themselves  and  their  families,  which  the  rich  have  always 


PROHIBITION. 


1 88 

taken  and  denied  to  the  poor.  They  have  died  in  prisons 
and  on  scaffolds,  they  have  died  in  every  way  that  the  poor 
man  might  have  more  of  the  luxuries  of  life.  The  im- 
proved conditions  you  have  to-day  are  not  due  to  the  pro- 
hibitionists, but  are  due  to  the  silent  dead,  who  have  given 
their  efforts  and  liberties  and  lives  in  your  behalf. 

And  now  you  are  asked  to  turn  your  backs  on  what 
they  have  done.  You  are  asked  to  leave  to  your  children 
a poorer  life  and  a poorer  heredity  than  your  fathers  have 
given  you.  You  are  asked  to  turn  back  to  the  past.  If 
you  give  up  your  luxuries,  any  of  them,  you  will  be  going 
back,  backward  toward  the  place  from  whence  you  came, 
and  as  you  go  you  will  pass  the  whitened  bones  of  those 
heroes  who  have  died  in  your  behalf  and  who  have  fought 
for  the  liberties  which  you  have  given  up.  Do  you  want 
to  do  it?  If  so,  do  it.  But  do  it  with  your  eyes  wide 
open.  Fight  for  prohibition  if  you  will  but  do  it  with 
your  conscience;  do  it  with  your  judgment;  do  it  with  your 
reason.  The  only  thing  for  the  working  man  to  do  is  to 
keep  what  he  has  and  to  get  more. 

labor’s  debt  to  prohibition? 

Gentlemen,  I admit  I am  somewhat  impatient  at  this 
crusade.  I am  impatient  about  its  hypocrisy.  I am 
impatient  on  account  of  its  selfishness ; I am  impatient 
on  account  of  its  ignorance ; I am  impatient  on  ac- 
count of  its  prejudice.  Who  are  these  people  who  come 
to  you  and  ask  you  to  give  up  an}’thing  that  has  been 
wrung  from  the  labor  and  suffering  of  the  past?  Are  they 
your  friends?  Have  they  fought  your  battles  when  you 
have  made  your  brave  struggle  for  a chance  to  live?  Have 
the  prohibitionists  stood  at  your  head  and  fought  your 
fights?  Who  are  they  that  shutting  their  eyes  to  all  the 
experiences  of  the  past,  never  knowing  your  feelings,  or 


LIBERTY  PROHIBITION. 


189 


knowing  your  cause,  or  having  sympathy  for  your  trou- 
bles, would  presume  to  place  themselves  at  your  head  and 
tell  you  what  to  do.  I object  to  a great  body  of  men,  the 
trade  unionists  of  America  who  represent  the  hopes  and 
the  fears  and  the  sufferings  and  the  aspirations  of  their 
fellow-men,  who  have  done  more  than  any  other  class  of 
men  in  America  to  make  life  better  for  the  poor  and  weak, 
to  give  more  comfort  and  happiness  to  mankind — I object 
to  this  great  body  of  men  being  led  down  a blind  alley  by  a 
handful  of  fanatics  who  know  nothing  about  their  cause. 

I was  reading  a book  the  other  day  by  a celebrated 
Russian  physician,  Metchnikoff,  who  is  now  the  head  of 
the  Pasteur  Institute  in  Paris.  He  says  men  ought  to  live 
to  be  120  years  old,  if  they  lived  right,  and  it  is  true;  and 
he  puts  down  food  as  the  first  cause  for  their  not  living 
longer.  Rum  was  one — overwork  was  one;  lots  of  them 
die  because  they  work  too  much — not  prohibitionists,  work- 
ing people.  Food  he  put  down  first.  Now  it  is  perfectly 
plain  if  a man  dies  under  100  years  of  age  and  doesn’t  get 
run  over  by  the  car,  or  struck  by  lightning,  he  has  died 
in  his  infancy. 

Let  me  give  you  a few  facts  that  I believe  are  so  plain 
that  even  a prohibitionist  could  see  them  if  he  opened  his 
eyes,  which  he  won’t.  These  people  don’t  care  anything 
at  all  about  life.  They  think  they  do.  They  doubtless  are 
honest  in  it,  but  they  are  so  carried  away  with  their  own 
eloquence  that  they  fool  themselves.  Do  they  care  whether 
men  live  to  be  25  or  125  ? Not  a cent.  I will  prove  it  to 
you.  Do  you  know  that  the  life  of  a working  man  is  not 
more  than  60  per  cent,  as  long  as  the  life  of  the  rich? 
Now,  why?  Is  it  rum  or  champagne?  No;  it  is  work. 
The  whole  body  of  men  who  toil  are  born  into  this  world 
and  know  nothing  excepting  to  work  from  morning  till 
night.  No  other  trade  but  to  earn  their  living  by  their 
hands.  They  die  when  only  a little  over  half  their  life  is 


190 


PROHIBITION. 


lived.  And  we  fellows  who  live  on  to  be  seventy  or  eighty, 
as  the  case  may  be — you  know  a doctor  lives  ten  years 
longer  than  the  working  man;  a lawyer  has  a better  graft 
still  and  lives  five  or  six  years  longer  than  a doctor — but 
the  preacher  beats  all  of  them.  (Laughter.)  Every  work- 
ing man  in  the  world  has  his  life  cut  off  by  work.  I am 
speaking  broadly  now.  Of  course  there  are  exceptions  to 
all  rules,  but  broadly  they  live  out  from  one-half  to  two- 
thirds  of  their  lives  because  they  work,  and  somebody  says 
although  you  are  going  to  live  one-half  your  days,  you 
must  stop  drinking  rum  for  fear  you  will  have  a good  time. 

When  did  you  ever  hear  of  a prohibition  convention 
raising  its  voice  in  protest  against  killing  working  men 
when  their  lives  were  only  one-half  done?  They  are  too 
busy  talking  about  Rum.  Now  let  me  tell  you  more.  Do 
you  know  of  all  the  people  who  are  born  into  this  world, 
all  who  come  upon  the  earth,  one-fifth  or  one-sixth  of  the 
human  race  of  the  whole  world  go  out  through  one  door, 
and  that  door  isn’t  Rum — that  door  is  tuberculosis.  One  out 
of  every  five  or  six,  they  are  lessening  it  a little;  they  are 
lessening  it  not  on  account  of  the  prohibitionists,  but  on 
account  of  the  scientists — one  out  of  every  five  or  six  die 
from  tuberculosis  and  they  die  between  twenty  and  thirt}- 
as  a general  rule,  when  they  are  of  the  most  use  to  their 
families  and  their  friends.  They  die  from  lack  of  air  and 
food  and  room  and  opportunity  to  live.  They  die,  not  on 
account  of  rum,  but  on  account  of  monopoly,  and  if  one- 
tenth  part  of  the  energy  and  money  and  hot  air  that  is 
spent  on  rum  were  spent  on  tuberculosis,  that  great  scourge 
would  have  been  wiped  away  years  ago.  Do  these  gen- 
tlemen care  anything  about  tuberculosis  patients?  No.  A 
man  may  be  eaten  alive  by  tuberculosis  and  the  prohibi- 
tionist looks  square  in  his  face  and  says,  “Oh ! Rum ! 
Rum !”  Why,  in  our  tenement  districts  tuberculosis  goes 
from  father  to  son,  from  mother  to  daughter,  from  sister 


LIBERTY  PROHIBITION. 


191 

to  brother,  and  in  our  sweat-shops  and  factories  they  die 
like  flies,  because  men  have  monopolized  the  earth,  and 
the  prohibitionist  looks  on  and  shouts,  “Rum !”  Let  me 
tell  you  more.  A half-million  working  men  were  killed 
and  maimed  last  year,  the  victims  of  our  industrial  ma- 
chines. They  were  ground  up  by  cars,  they  died  in  molten 
vats  of  steel  and  lead ; they  had  their  arms  and  hands  cut 
off  by  machines ; they  fell  from  the  tenth  or  fifteenth 
story  of  an  iron  structure,  up  in  the  air,  while  working  to 
buy  bread  for  their  families.  They  died  by  every  spindle 
and  engine  that  makes  these  great  industries  what  they 
are.  Half  a million  of  these  lives  and  limbs  could  have 
been  saved  if  man  cared  for  life  and  didn’t  care  for  dol- 
lars. If  they  tried  to  make  machines  safe,  safe  to  protect 
human  life,  men  and  women  and  little  children,  these  lives 
would  have  been  saved.  The  other  day,  in  the  State  of 
Illinois  about  three  hundred  poor  fellows  went  down  into 
the  earth  with  a torch  on  their  head  and  lived  a lingering 
death  of  perhaps  a week  or  ten  days,  and  never  came  up 
to  their  families  and  their  homes.  The  reason  was  that 
men  were  more  interested  in  making  a mine  profitable  than 
in  making  a mine  safe.  (Applause.)  Do  you  hear  any 
of  these  prohibitionists  sigh  and  do  you  see  them  shed 
tears  and  do  you  hear  them  raise  their  voices  in  agony 
because  of  a half-million  poor  working  men  ground  under 
the  wheels  of  industry  every  year  to  make  money  for  men? 
No.  They  don’t  see  the  tears  of  the  widows  and  they  don’t 
hear  the  moans  of  the  orphans,  and  they  don’t  hear  the 
dying  groans  of  the  poor  victims  of  our  industry.  They 
are  too  busy  shouting,  “Rum !’’ 

I can  tell  you  more.  Do  you  know  that  in  our  tene- 
ment districts,  in  our  great  cities,  where  men  and  women 
and  little  children  are  huddled  together  like  ants,  do  you 
know  that  half  of  the  children  of  the  poor  die  before  they 
are  six  years  old?  The  rich  man’s  child  will  live,  the  poor 


192 


PROHIBITION. 


man’s  child  will  die.  Half  of  them  before  they  are  six 
years  old  in  our  crowded  tenement  districts!  They  don’t 
die  because  they  drink  too  much  rum,  but  because  they 
drink  too  little  milk!  (Applause.)  You  must  remember 
the  rich  people’s  work  must  be  done.  The  poor  die  for 
lack  of  food,  for  lack  of  air  and  nobody  cares.  The  prohi- 
bitionists are  too  busy  about  rum. 

Do  you  know  that  the  labor  organizations  of  this  coun- 
try have  kept  their  men  before  every  legislative  body  in 
America? — they  have  taken  their  earnings  and  sent  men 
to  the  capitals  of  every  State  and  the  capital  of  the  Nation 
to  plead  for  legislation  that  would  make  safety  appliances 
for  railroads  and  cars;  that  would  make  mines  safe;  that 
would  protect  life.  They  have  been  there  year  after  year, 
pleading  to  take  little  children  out  of  the  mines ; to  take 
them  away  from  the  spindles  and  put  them  into  the  schools ; 
to  prevent  women  from  taking  the  jobs  from  their  hus- 
bands and  fathers.  Have  you  ever  been  to  a legislative 
body  and  found  a committee  of  prohibitionists  there  to  help 
you  plead  your  cause?  Have  they  ever  raised  their  voices 
in  behalf  of  your  lives,  of  your  limbs,  of  your  wives,  of 
your  children?  Have  they  ever  done  anything  except  to 
shout,  “Rum”?  While  you  have  been  there  pleading  for 
your  homes  and  your  families  and  your  lives,  over  here 
in  the  comer  is  raised  a hoarse  cry  of  the  prohibitionists, 
saying:  “For  God’s  sake,  don’t  take  that!  Don’t  give  us 
the  Employers’  Liability  Act ! Don’t  give  us  the  Safety 
Appliance  Act ! Don’t  do  anything  about  mills  and  mines ; 
just  wait.  Don’t  take  up  that.  Let’s  first  destroy  rum. 
Join  with  us  on  a moral  issue.  Let  us  get  rid  of  rum  and 
then  we  will  help  you,”  and  if  you  help  them  get  rid 
of  rum  and  go  back  you  will  find  these  gentlemen  in  the 
corner  and  they  will  say:  “Not  now.  Let  us  get  rid  of 
tobacco.  Let  us  get  rid  of  theatres  and  cards  and  billiards 


LIBERTY  z/j.  PROHIBITION. 


193 


and  dancing  and  everything  else,  and  then  we  will  attend 
to  you.” 

THE  ONLY  WAY. 

Now  there  is  one  rule  of  life.  If  you  give  men  oppor- 
tunity, give  them  food  and  clothing  and  drink  and  sunlight 
and  homes,  they  can  look  after  their  own  morals  and  they 
can’t  do  it  any  other  way.  (Applause.)  The  whole  theory 
of  prohibition  is  wrong.  If  they  get  one  thing  they  will 
want  another.  To-day  it  is  rum.  To-morrow  it  will  be 
tobacco;  next  day  it  will  be  coffee.  The  theory  is  wrong; 
man  can  only  progress  by  liberty.  Is  there  any  doubt? 
Look  back  to  the  origin  of  the  human  race,  back  to  the 
time  when  man  rose  from  the  brute  creation  and  looked 
the  world  in  the  face.  Every  step  has  been  a struggle ; 
he  has  been  ruled  by  kings,  by  tyrants,  by  the  great,  by  the 
strong.  But  he  has  slowly  fought  his  way  upward  to  the 
position  he  occupies  to-day.  Every  step  has  been  a strug- 
gle, every  footprint  has  been  marked  by  blood.  It  has 
been  a long  and  painful  battle  that  the  human  race  has 
fought.  Every  step  has  been  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  lib- 
erty. And  take  the  dream  and  ideal  of  freedom  from  the 
human  race  and  slowly  and  painfully  it  will  go  back  to 
the  brute  creation  from  whence  it  came. 


Tke  Demoralization  of  State 
Prokitition 


(Extract  from  address  by  Rev.  George  Eliot  Cooley, 
before  the  JNIethodist  Conference  at  Lyndonville,  \^ermont, 
April  20,  1901.) 

Good  men  and  sincere  men  can  and  do  differ  honestly 
in  respect  to  the  results  of  this  law.  I stand  unqualifiedly 
on  the  ground  that  temperance  is  a principle  of  life  to  which 
all  individuals  are  amenable.  . . . We  are  coming  to  see 
that  it  is  impossible  to  bring  in  the  kingdom  of  God  by 
legislation ; yet,  as  earnest  men  we  are  anxious  to  determine 
upon  the  best  method  of  dealing  with  the  intemperance  evil. 
May  it  not  be  possible  that,  in  the  effort  to  prevent  this  evil 
of  intemperance  by  a State  prohibitory  law,  we  are  fostering 
greater  and  more  insidious  evils?  Respect  for  the  courts 
has  been  undermined  by  the  wholesale  disregard  for  law, 
confidence  in  judicial  processes  has  been  destroyed  by  so 
many  miscarriages  of  justice,  the  oath  has  been  invalidated 
and  perjury  promoted  by  the  effort  to  enforce  a law  which 
many  feel  under  no  obligation  to  observe. 

The  condition  of  things  thus  brought  about  ought  to  be 
appalling  to  the  teacher  of  morals,  and  the  advocates  of  law 
and  order.  Who  is  not  aware  of  the  great  injury  done 
to  organized  society  by  these  persistent  and  insidious  efforts 
to  subvert  the  law?  It  tends  to  make  officials  two-faced, 
legislators  timid  and  insincere,  candidates  for  office  dis- 
simulating, and  when  elected,  unfaithful  and  hypocritical. 

194 


DEMORALIZATION  OF  PROHIBITION.  195 


The  effect  >of  this  law  has  been  to  rear  a class  of  men 
who  shamelessly  pay  fines  and  bribes  and  hush  money  in 
order  to  evade  its  operation,  and  another  class  which  will 
just  as  shamelessly  accept  this  corrupted  money. 

I take  issue  emphatically  and  sincerely  with  those  who 
would  maintain  and  enforce  a State  prohibitory  law.  With- 
out the  people  behind  a law,  in  each  community  where  it 
is  to  be  enforced,  that  law  is  impotent. 


Tke  Work  mgs  of  a Dangerous 
Power 


BY  EDWARD  ALLAN. 


O Liberty ! how  many  crimes  are  committed  in  thy 
name!  Well  may  this  exclamation  of  the  immortal  French 
woman  be  paraphrased  to  fit  present-day  conditions  of 
“reform.” 

On  all  sides  we  see  the  many  injustices  and  absurdities 
wrought  by  the  fantastic  efforts  of  a fanatical  element  of 
our  population  who  are  seeking  their  selfish  ends  under  the 
subterfuge  of  moral  betterment  enforced  by  act  of 
Legislature. 

From  many  sources  attention  has  been  called  to  the 
true  meaning  of  the  present  active  prohibition  movement 
which  just  now  is  giving  so  many  evidences  of  having 
reached  its  apogee. 

This  wave  will  not  break  upon  the  rocks  of  right  reason, 
common  sense  and  true  patriotism  until  its  real  impelling 
force  has  been  laid  bare  to  the  slow  and  obscured  vision 
of  so  many  of  our  American  voters. 

If  there  was  any  one  idea  more  deeply  unrooted  than 
another  in  the  minds  of  the  founders  of  our  republic,  it 
was  that  of  a complete  separation  of  church  and  state.  To 
them  the  ideal  state  was  one  wherein  all  should  be  free  to 
worship  God  accordingly  to  the  dictates  of  individual  con- 
196 


A DANGEROUS  POWER. 


197 


science  and  where  the  church  should  never,  in  letter  or 
spirit,  be  permitted  to  dominate  in  the  functions  of  govern- 
ment. 

Accepting  this  primal  design  of  church  elimination  from 
state  affairs,  those  who  followed  in  the  footsteps  of  the 
founders  of  our  Government  have  made  easy  the  labors  of 
the  church,  regardless  of  sect  or  creed  by  exempting  church 
property  from  taxation. 

It  was  felt  that  buildings  devoted  to  the  service  and 
worship  of  God  were  sacred,  and  therefore  immune  from 
the  burdens  of  government  and  politics  in  which  they  were 
to  take  no  part. 

This  was  a wholesome  and  reverential  position  for  the 
state  to  maintain  towards  the  churches,  and  in  wisdom 
and  decency  the  churches  should  have  cherished  this  at- 
titude of  the  state  and  for  all  time  refrained  from  activities 
tending  to  change  or  weaken  this  deference.  Let  us  see  how 
this  tender  consideration  by  the  State  has  been  requited  by 
certain  of  the  sects  of  our  day. 

“Would  that  mine  enemy  might  write  a book,”  is  the 
frequent  prayer  of  political  antagonists. 

The  Anti-Saloon  League  has  been  doing  a good  deal  of 
writing  recently,  and  in  its  fight  for  political  bossism  in 
State  and  nation  is  at  least  achieving  commendable  candor. 

Men  who  write  from  the  standpoint  of  commercial  and 
economic  interests  and  of  vested  rights  on  this  topic  of 
enforced  morality  by  statute  are,  of  course,  branded  as 
“minions  of  the  rum  power.”  Therefore  in  the  showing 
we  shall  endeavor  to  make,  we  will  present  no  statements 
of  our  own,  but  only  the  testimony,  the  printed  testimony 
of  our  friends,  the  enemy. 

We  need  no  longer  remain  in  doubt  as  to  the  true  char- 
acter and  composition  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League.  For 
they  tell  us  authoritatively  just  what  it  is — the  united  church 


198 


PROHIBITION. 


forces  in  action — and  how  it  does  its  work — by  industrious 
political  wire  pulling. 

This  is  not  a pleasant  picture  of  the  Christian  Church 
doing  the  work  of  its  founder. 

The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and 
Social  Science  is  a bi-monthly  Philadelphia  publication. 
Its  number  of  November,  1908,  is  given  over  entireh^  to 
the  question  of  “Regulation  of  the  Liquor  Traffic.”  Three 
of  the  prominent  contributions  in  this  number  are  from 
place  holders  in  the  Anti-Saloon  League. 

J.  C.  Jackson,  of  Columbus,  O.,  editor  of  the  American 
Issue,  the  national  official  organ  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League, 
under  the  title  of  “The  Work  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League,” 
gives  the  following  facts  concerning  Ohio  (page  24)  : 

“Lack  of  space  forbids  any  detailed  mention  of  the  poli- 
tical campaigns  in  which  the  league  has  engaged  for  the 
election  or  defeat  of  candidates  favorable  or  unfavorable 
to  temperance  measures.  Beginning  with  Ohio,  with  its 
defeat  either  for  renomination  at  the  conventions  or  at 
the  ballot-box,  of  upward  of  one  hundred  legislators  un- 
favorable to  temperance  measures,  and  its  overthrow  of 
Governor  Herrick,  previously  elected  by  113,000,  by  up- 
ward of  42,000,  for  having  weakened  the  residence  district- 
option  law,  together  with  a large  amount  of  other  most 
effective  election  work,  a like  record  is  measurably  true 
of  nearly  every  State  organization  of  the  league,  according 
to  the  time  it  has  been  in  operation.” 

Speaking  of  Wisconsin,  he  tells  us : 

“The  league  materially  assisted,  after  a hard  fight,  in 
defeating  thirty-seven  legislators  in  1905  who  had  voted 
against  the  residence  district  local  option  bill,  the  league 
measure.  This  measure,  as  a consequence,  was  enacted  in 
1907  without  opposition.  The  league  also  secured  the  de- 
feat of  an  obnoxious  United  States  senator.” 

Still  more  interesting  is  the  contribution  of  -M. 


A DANGEROUS  POWER. 


199 


Burke,  superintendent  Oakland  District  Anti-Saloon  League 
of  California,  under  the  title,  “The  Anti-Saloon  League 
as  a Political  Force.” 

This  writer,  more  ingenuous  than  his  collaborator,  is 
very  interesting  in  his  candor.  He,  too,  gloats  over  the 
discomfiture  wrought  upon  the  Republican  party  in  Ohio 
in  the  Herrick-Pattison  campaign.  To  fully  illustrate  the 
power  of  the  league,  he  tells  us  (page  32)  ; 

“This  was  most  clearly,  and  in  a most  spectacular  man- 
ner, demonstrated  in  the  campaign  against  Governor  Myron 
T.  Herrick,  of  Ohio.  Although  Governor  Herrick  had  been 
elected  the  first  time  by  114,000  majority,  and  although 
he  was  supported  by  about  12,000  saloon  keepers  and  175 
brewers  and  distillers  of  the  State,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
President  Roosevelt,  of  the  same  party,  had  received  a 
majority  of  255,000  in  the  state  of  Ohio,  nevertheless,  when 
Governor  Herrick  refused  to  stand  by  the  measure  which 
the  united  church  forces,  in  the  person  of  the  Anti-Saloon 
League,  was  backing  with  all  its  strength,  he  was  defeated 
by  42,000  votes.” 

Lack  of  space  forbids  fuller  mention  of  the  minutiae  of 
Mr.  Burke’s  somewhat  vainglorious  recital. 

The  two  following  extracts,  however,  speak  for  them- 
selves (page  35) : 

“After  the  election  the  work  of  the  league  is  to  see 
to  it  that  the  measure  which  the  united  church  forces  wish 
enacted  is  carried  through.  This  means  constant  lobbying 
at  the  Legislature.  A representative  of  the  league  is  found 
in  every  legislature  in  the  country,  and  it  is  his  business 
to  watch  the  measure  and  aid  its  rapid  movement  from 
the  time  of  its  introduction  until  it  finally  becomes  a law. 
This  requires  keen  judgment,  quick  thinking  and  a knowl- 
edge of  parliamentary  law  and  of  political  tricks.” 

Again  we  are  told: 

“There  are  now  between  four  and  five  hundred  men 


200 


PROHIBITION. 


whose  time  is  wholly  engaged  in  the  crystallization  of  this 
sentiment  into  action.  They  are  picked  from  every  walk 
in  life  because  of  their  qualifications  as  to  integrity, 
diplomacy  and  political  leadership.  Let  any  question  have 
the  support  of  the  entire  evangelical  church;  then  organize 
this  force  for  action ; put  into  the  field  four  hundred  and 
fifty  keen,  bright,  able  men;  let  them  draw  their  support 
from  the  millions  who  are  in  favor  of  the  object  proposed, 
and  you  can  create  and  organize  sentiment  enough  to  ac- 
complish almost  any  purpose  desired.  That  is  what  is 
happening  in  the  political  arena  to-day  as  against  the  open 
saloon.  It  is  merely  the  united  church  forces  in  action.” 

Thus  we  have  it  clearly  laid  before  us  by  the  admission 
of  the  editor  of  the  Anti-Saloon  League’s  official  national 
organ,  and  by  the  pen  of  one  of  its  recognized  California 
officials  that  the  Anti-Saloon  League  is  merely  the  “united 
church  forces”  in  action  and  that  “in  action”  the  church 
forces  have  done  and  are  proud  of  having  done  almost 
anything  and  everything  that  the  average  political  huckster 
ward-worker  and  wire-puller  is  in  the  habit  of  doing  to 
gain  an  end. 

We  are  vauntingly  told  that  the  “church  forces”  in 
action  have  changed  over  one  hundred  members  of  the  Ohio 
Legislature,  defeated  an  obnoxious  senator  in  Wisconsin 
and  another  in  New  Jersey — and  is  now  in  position  to 
accomplish  almost  any  purpose  desired.  The  “rule  or  ruin” 
spirit  displayed  by  the  “church  forces  in  action”  as  por- 
trayed by  their  able  champions  is  the  significant  feature 
which  must  arrest  attention  and  excite  alarm. 

In  defeating  “obnoxious”  Linited  States  senators  and 
in  changing  one  hundred  members  of  a state  legislature, 
no  allusion  is  made  to  the  fitness  or  unfitness  of  these 
men  for  the  high  places  they  sought.  Suffice  it  that  they 
were  not  minions  of  the  “church  forces,”  they  were  made 
to  walk  the  plank. 


A DANGEROUS  POWER. 


201 


And  what  have  these  boasted  political  campaigners  in 
their  various  States  done  for  religion  and  morality. 

Are  these  avowed  performances  in  line  with  the  func- 
tions of  religion?  Are  they  in  unison  with  the  teachings 
of  the  Nazarene  and  his  disciples?  Do  we  find  warrant  for 
them  in  the  gospel  of  His  apostles?  Do  they  savor  of 
the  things  of  eternity  or  do  they  reek  with  the  slime  and 
repellence  of  very  mundane  twentieth-century  United  States 
politics  ? 

What  appeal  to  the  moral  sense  do  we  find  in  any  of 
these  vaunted  feats  of  political  legerdemain?  And  if  the 
“united  church  forces  in  action”  can  subvert  Legislatures 
and  defeat  congressional  candidates,  dictate  legislation,  and 
boss  political  parties  on  one  subject^  why  not  upon  all 
questions?  Why  not  upon  currency,  tariff,  Chinese  or  Jap- 
anese immigration,  union  labor,  railroads,  pure  food,  for- 
eign policy;  in  short,  upon  any  question  to  which  the  al- 
leged “united”  but  chiefly  Methodist  church  forces  in  action 
choose  to  make  the  subject  of  their  intermeddling. 

In  all  such  matters  as  these  is  the  church  to  dominate 
the  State  and  make  mockery  of  our  boasted  tenets  of  church 
elimination  in  the  affairs  of  Government? 

For  three  hundred  years  the  nations  and  the  peoples  of 
Europe  have  struggled  to  free  themselves  from  this  always 
undesirable  and  frequently  tyrannical  power  in  State  rule. 

Are  we  in  free  America  to  walk  backward  in  this  twen- 
tieth century  of  liberty  and  enlightenment.  In  no  one  of 
the  so-called  “priest-ridden”  countries  of  Europe,  not  in 
Spain  nor  in  Italy  nor  in  Russia,  would  a self-constituted 
clericalism,  acting  along  political  and  governmental  lines, 
venture  upon  such  antics  of  domination  and  interference 
as  our  Methodist  brethren  are  boasting  of  here. 

In  Ohio  we  saw  them,  less  than  a year  ago,  taking 
physical  possession  of  the  State  House  on  occasions  of 
alleged  committee  hearings,  and  swarming  and  packing  the 


202 


PROHIBITION. 


halls  of  legislation  in  their  bull-dozing  efforts  to  force  the 
passage  of  such  laws  as  suited  their  tyrannical  fancy,  re- 
gardless of  the  rights  of  anything  or  anybody,  while  ques- 
tions of  vital  moment  to  the  people  of  our  State  were  ruth- 
lessly brushed  aside  and  denied  consideration  in  this  mad 
effort  to  assert  church  power  and  church  dominance.  Is  it 
surprising  that  churches  resorting  to  such  methods  for  su- 
premacy fail  to  command  the  respect  and  attract  the  attend- 
ance of  the  masses? 

The  “united  church  forces  in  action”  in  their  Ohio  cam- 
paign had  stacked  the  primaries  and  packed  both  branches 
of  the  Legislature ; they  had  footed  the  expense  bills  with 
money  wrung  from  the  corporations  seeking  legislative  pro- 
tection and  they  exacted  their  pound  of  flesh  even  at  the 
bedside  of  a dying  governor. 

Backed  financially  and  otherwise  by  the  tribute  of  the 
“interests”  conspicuously  by  those  interests  which  have 
been,  and  still  are,  in  controversy  with  the  federal  and 
State  authorities,  they  rode  rough-shod  over  all  opposition 
to  what  they  called  success. 

Was  this  success  a function  of  religion  of  the  kind 
which  should  entitle  the  “forces”  to  the  use  of  tax-exempt 
church  realty? 

With  pulpits  turned  into  rostrums  for  the  ignoring  of 
the  Word  of  God  and  the  promulgation  of  political  ends,  is 
the  beneficent  exemption  of  church  realty  by  the  State  being 
used  or  abused? 

For  many  years  some  of  our  iMethodist  brethren  as- 
sailed the  National  Congress  in  their  efforts  to  have  the 
name  of  God  written  in  our  National  Constitution  as  a 
stepping-stone  to  the  establishment  of  a national  church. 
Every  effort  at  this  perversion  of  one  of  the  essential  fea- 
tures of  that  immortal  instrument  was  unifonuly  thwarted 
by  the  wisdom  of  the  Congress.  But  what  they  failed  to 
accomplish  by  direct  methods  they  are  now  seeking  to 
attain  by  indirection.  And  if  unchecked  in  their  efforts 


A DANGEROUS  POWER. 


203 


to  capture  the  lawmaking  powers  of  State  and  nation, 
they  will  finally  attain  their  end.  Do  we  want  a national 
church  in  this  country? 

O Religion ! how  little  of  the  spirit  of  the  Master  per- 
vades thy  halls  and  how  little  enters  into  the  hearts  of  thy 
high  priests ! 

The  greatest  of  American  showmen  has  told  us  that  the 
American  people  like  to  be  humbugged ! Dowieism  has 
had  its  day.  Purley  Bakerism  now  holds  the  boards,  but 
the  play  is  nearing  the  finale.  “Mine  enemy”  has  “written 
books”  and  the  books  are  being  read  and  slowly,  very 
slowly,  absorbed  by  a people  who  “like  to  be  humbugged.” 

The  end  is  not  far  off,  for  in  the  words  of  the  greatest 
of  our  great  men — “the  sober  second  thought  of  the  Amer- 
ican people  can  always  be  trusted.” 

The  promoters  of  the  play  are  having  troubles  of  their 
own,  and  the  sleepers  among  the  humbugged  are  awaken- 
ing. The  band  wagon  of  aridity  is  no  longer  a vehicle  of 
splendor  and  power,  and  the  climbers  are  seeking  the 
chariot  of  the  rising  sun — of  an  awakened  people. 

The  fanaticism  and  bigotry  and  intolerance  of  the  past 
ages  have  no  place  in  the  limelight  of  to-day,  and  those 
who  love  righteousness,  liberty  and  human  freedom  and 
justice  and  truth  and  manhood  need  only  to  be  shown  a 
power  dangerous  to  our  free  institutions  to  finally  rise 
in  their  might  and  -overwhelm  it. 


Xke  Ckurck  s Temperance  Duties 

UTTERANCES  OF  WELL  KNOWN  CHURCH  DIGNITARIES  ON  THE 
SUBJECT  OF  PROHIBITION. 


Bishop  Lines,  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  says: 

“Prohibition  would  lead  to  the  formation  of  clubs  which 
could  not  be  controlled,  and  which  would  be  more  demor- 
alizing than  saloons.” 

Bishop  Johnson,  of  Texas,  says : 

“I  would  be  the  last  to  curtail  or  infringe  upon  the 
rights  of  the  men  engaged  in  the  liquor  traffic,  for  I 
believe  that  they  have  as  much  right,  under  the  law,  to  sell 
liquor  as  I have  to  preach.” 

Bishop  Grafton,  of  Wisconsin,  says; 

“I  can  not  agree  with  those  who  think  that  the  taking 
of  wines,  etc.,  in  moderation  is  wrong,  because  the  process 
of  fermentation  is  one  of  God’s  creative  acts,  and  the 
divine  Master  of  the  Christian  religion  turned  water  into 
wine.” 

Bishop  Hoffman,  of  Philadelphia,  says: 

“You  can  not  legislate  people  into  being  good,  and  pro- 
hibition does  not  accomplish  its  desired  end  after  all,  as 
witnessed  in  the  State  of  Maine,  which  is  anything  but  a 
closed  State  except  in  name.” 

204 


THE  CHURCH’S  DUTIES. 


205 


Bishop  Potter,  says: 

“Our  prohibitory  laws,  whether  we  put  them  in  opera- 
tion on  one  day  or  on  all  days,  are  as  stupid  as  they  are 
ineffectual.  Most  of  our  methods  for  dealing  with  the 
drink  evil  in  our  day  and  generation  are  tainted  with  false- 
hood, dishonored  by  essential  unreality  and  discredited 
by  widespread  and  consistent  failure.” 

Bishop  Hall,  of  Vermont,  says: 

“Prohibition  drives  underground  the  mischief  which  it 
seeks  to  cure,  making  it  more  difficult  to  deal  with  the 
evil  and  impossible  to  regulate  the  trade,  as,  for  instance, 
in  the  quality  of  liquor  sold.” 

Bishop  Doane,  of  New  York,  says: 

“No  such  law  can  be  framed  that  will  not  create  a 
popular  excitement  by  its  alleged  interference  with  individ- 
ual liberty,  and  its  unfair  discrimination  of  privilege  be- 
tween classes,  or  will  be  used,  as  it  has  been  for  many  years, 
as  a means  of  extorting  money  by  city  officials  from  vio- 
lators of  the  law  to  purchase  immunity.” 

Bishop  Whittaker  says: 

“The  true  meaning  of  the  word  temperance  has  become 
dwarfed  and  narrowed  from  Christian  self-control  to  that  of 
total  abstinence  from  intoxicating  liquors.” 

Bishop  Gailor,  of  Tennessee,  says : 

“Such  a drastic  law  as  prohibition,  imposing  a special 
theory  of  morals  upon  a community,  must  become  a provo- 
cation of  deception  and  lying  and  disrespect  for  law,  which 
are  worse  than  intemperance.  Intemperate  legislation  is  ^ 
as  bad  as  the  intemperate  use  of  food  and  drink.” 

Bishop  Fox,  of  Green  Bay,  Wis.,  says : 

“I  do  not  think  there  are  five  bishops  in  the  country  who  | 
are  in  favor  of  prohibition.” 


206 


PROHIBITION. 


Bishop  Clark,  of  Rhode  Island,  says : 

, “Prohibition  has  been  disastrous  to  the  cause  of  tem- 
/ perance.” 

Bishop  Spaulding,  of  Peoria,  111.,  says; 

“There  is  a law  of  human  nature  that  excessive  pressure 
brought  to  bear  on  any  special  form  of  moral  evil  results 
in  other  evil ; and  now  when  various  influences  are  dimin- 
ishing intemperance  in  America,  there  seems  to  be  no  suffi- 
cient reason  for  calling  upon  the  State  to  prohibit  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  of  alcoholic  liquors.” 

Bishop  Perry,  of  Iowa,  said: 

“There  is  just  as  much  drunkenness  under  the  prohib- 
itory laws  (in  Iowa)  as  there  ever  was  before.  Prohibition 
does  not  prohibit.  I have  lived  in  five  States  where  it  failed 
utterly.  The  drug  stores  became  the  saloons.  Four  thou- 
sand druggists  in  Iowa  took  out  Government  licenses  to 
sell  whisky,  and  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  they  would  not 
pay  $25  for  the  privilege  unless  they  really  meant  to  sell 
whisky.” 

Bishop  Chas.  D.  Williams  says: 

“I  do  not  believe  absolute  prohibition  is  possible.” 


Bishop  Brown,  of  Arkansas,  says : 


“Speaking  generally  I have  also  this  objection  to  pro- 
hibitionary movements  in  the  interests  of  any  form  of  right- 
eousness, that  is  an  attempt  to  build  up  the  sand  and 
a resort  to  the  evil  of  tyranny  that  good  may  be  accom- 
plished. I am  profoundly  convinced  that  the  superstructure 
which  prohibitionists  are  seeking  to  erect  will  not  stand.” 


Bishop  Neely,  of  Maine,  says : 

“The  clubs  are  simply  coteries  of  young  men  who  call 
themselves  clubs  and  get  together  and  have  their  bottles 


THE  CHURCH’S  DUTIES. 


207 


in  their  closets.  I am  sure  these  clubs  have  a very  bad  effect, 
in  that  young  men  who  never  drank  at  all  previously  have 
done  so  in  the  secrecy  of  the  club,  as  they  call  it ; they 
would  not  be  seen  to  drink  over  a bar,  but  they  do  it  in  ■' 
the  club  rooms.” 

Bishop  Satterlee  says: 

“Prohibition  has  been  tried  in  other  places,  and  it  has 
been  found  wanting.  In  Maine,  which  is  pointed  out  as 
the  first  place  where  prohibitory  laws  were  enacted,  pro- 
hibition is  a farce.” 

Archbishop  Messmer  says : 

“I  do  not  believe  that  we  can  reform  men  by  law.  Pro- 
hibition, according  to  many  observers,  actually  brings  more 
liquor  than  the  open  sale  of  intoxicants  under  the  proper 
police  supervision.” 

Cardinal  Gibbons  says: 

‘T  am  persuaded  that  it  is  practically  impossible  to  I 
put  prohibition  into  effect  in  any  large  community.  Laws  ! ^ 
like  prohibition  that  are  certain  to  be  violated  had  best 
not  be  made,  for  incessant  violation  draws  down  upon  ■ 
them  disrespect.” 

Bishop  Donohue,  of  West  Virginia,  says: 

“I  most  earnestly  protest  against  threatened  prohibition 
legislation.” 

Bishop  Eallows,  Chicago: 

“The  saloon  is  emphatically  the  ‘poor  man’s  club.’  It 
is  cosmopolitan ; it  is  instinct  with  the  spirit  of  democracy. 

The  very  prompting  which  brings  business  men  together 
in  ‘their  Somerset  club  or  their  Union  League  club  leads 
the  laboring  man  into  the  clubs  furnished  by  the  saloon.’ 

“The  saloon  is  the  chief  labor  bureau  in  nearly  every 
large  city.  The  laboring  man  goes  straight  to  some  saloon 


2o8 


PROHIBITION. 


when  he  is  out  of  employment,  knowing  that  he  is  likely 
to  find  not  only  temporary  relief  but  assistance  in  finding 
work.” 


BISHOP  POTTER  ON  PROHIBITION. 

In  his  address  to  the  annual  convention  of  his  Diocese 
on  September  24,  1902,  Bishop  Potter  said: 

“The  law  of  the  church  binds  upon  me  a duty  which 
I feel  to  be  a definite  obligation ; and  in  its  performance 
I will  ask  your  attention  this  morning  to  a charge  upon 
the  subject  of  temperance.  I do  this  because  I regard 
the  church’s  attitude  to  this  subject  as  of  primary  and 
pre-eminent  importance,  and  because  I hold  that  she  is  in 
the  world  as  a guardian  both  of  faith  and  of  morals.  I 
do  it,  also  because  there  is,  I believe,  at  present  existing 
widespread  misapprehension  on  this  subject,  and,  what 
is  worse,  widespread  apathy. 

“The  Christian  Church  has  undoubtedly  wasted  much 
energy,  and  well-intentioned  Christian  people  are  still  wast- 
ing much  activity,  in  the  pursuit  of  methods  and  maxims 
concerning  the  drink  habit,  which  have  earned  for  them 
the  ridicule,  if  not  the  resentment,  of  reasoning  and  reflect- 
ing people;  but  those  of  us  who  judge  such  persons  harshly 
are  often  willingly  ignorant  of  situations  and  incidents 
which  are  peculiar  to  our  modern  civilization,  and  which 
have,  and  had,  no  parallel  in  Oriental  times  and  customs. 

“Let  me  make  my  meaning  quite  plain.  If  the  dangers 
from  drunkenness  had  been  as  great  or  as  imminent  in  the 
tropical  countries  in  which  the  first  missionaries  of  Chris- 
tianity lived  and  to  which  they  wrote  as  they  are  in  ours, 
I believe  that  their  language  would  have  been  much  plainer 
and  stronger,  though  I believe  that  they  would  not  have 
departed  from  the  wise  law  by  which  they  were  governed, 
which  did  not  lay  down  rules,  but  which  enunciated  prin- 
ciples. For  modern  life  is  Rot  ancient  life.  The  modern 


THE  CHURCH’S  DUTIES. 


209 


strain  of  bread-winning  is  not,  at  any  rate  with  us,  the 
easy  task  of  earlier  or  later  tropical  existence.  With  our 
conditions,  in  other  words,  have  arisen  a whole  family  of 
perils,  of  which  the  men  and  women  of  St.  Paul’s  time 
could  have  little  or  no  knowledge. 

“We  resent,  alas,  most  of  us  to  whom  I speak  this 
morning,  as  an  intolerable  impertinence  a reference  to  these 
conditions,  as  though  they  were  all  of  a nature  for  which 
we  were  in  no  wise  responsible,  and  to  which  we  could 
bring  no  amelioration ; but,  in  fact,  no  one  who  is  reaping 
the  benefits  of  any  single  one  of  the  enrichments  of  our 
twentieth-century  civilization  has  a right  to  do  so  without 
asking  himself  the  question : What  are  modern  cheap- 
ness and  invention  and  machinery,  and  all  the  multitude 
of  inexpensive  conveniences  which  make  my  life  so  different 
from  the  life  of  my  forefathers — what  are  these  things 
costing — not  the  employer  who  produces  them,  nor  the 
tradesman  who  sells  them — but  the  mechanic  who  makes 
them  ? And  how  can  I blame  him,  whose  task  is  so  narrow, 
so  confining  and  so  monotonous,  if  now  and  then  he  ‘evens 
up,’  as  he  says  and  introduces  a little  variety  into  life  by 
getting  drunk. 

“We  have  had,  and  still  have,  as  I pointed  out  not 
long  ago,  a school  of  reformers,  whose  shibboleth  is  at 
this  point  a definite  philosophy  of  responsibility,  which, 
since  then,  has  found  its  echo  in  denunciations  and  in  legis- 
lation equally  impotent  and  futile.  Mr.  John  B.  Gough 
was  the  father  of  this  school  of  reformers,  whose  shib- 
boleth is  that  the  drunkard  is  a victim  and  not  a trans- 
gressor ; and  who,  in  consistent  forgetfulness  of  the 
apostolic  maxim  that  ‘every  man  shall  bear  his  own  burden’ 
has  undertaken  to  create  for  us  a new  earth  if  not  a new 
heaven,  by  penalties  which  strike  at  the  man  who  sells  an 
intoxicant  rather  than  at  the  man  who  buys  and  drinks  it. 

“It  was  not  unnatural  that,  confronted  by  such  questions 


210 


PROHIBITION. 


as  these,  an  unreflecting  public  sentiment  should  have  taken 
refuge  in  legislation  which,  if  it  refused  to  face  the  issues 
which  it  raised,  brushed  them  aside  with  sweeping  enact- 
ments, that  at  one  blow  proposed  to  destroy  a traffic  which 
it  could  not  control.  Nothing  could  have  demonstrated 
more  clearly  the  utter  failure  of  that  attempt  than  the 
hysterical  and  vituperative  denunciations  with  which  the 
disclosure  of  that  failure  has  been  met.  In  this  connection 
the  association  of  the  principle  of  local  politics,  whether 
municipal  or  national,  with  that  of  prohibition  has  notes 
which  are  alike  pathetic  and  alarming — pathetic  because  it 
reveals  how  weak  they  may  be  whose  great  place  forbids 
that  they  shall  speak  the  truth  as  they  know  it,  and  alarm- 
ing because  its  discloses  to  us  how  little  representative, 
under  the  dominion  of  this  cowardice,  are  even  the  best 
minds  among  us. 

“Under  the  system  of  government  which  boasts  that 
it  knows  no  privileged  classes,  we  cater  to  them  at  every 
corner,  and  the  club,  the  hotel,  the  fashionable  restaurant, 
furnishes  for  a dollar  what  the  wearer  of  a fustian  jacket, 
with  his  five  or  ten  cents,  cannot  even  venture  to  ask  for. 
And  yet  this  is  a system  which  we  defend  in  the  name  of 
our  Puritan  forefathers  and  our  primitive  traditions.  I 
often  wonder,  if  they  could  come  back  and  see  our  changed 
conditions,  what  they  would  say  to  it ! 

“You  will  gather  from  this  how  superficial,  how  utterly 
inhuman,  inconsiderate  and  unreasonable  I regard  a great 
deal  of  that  doubtless  often  well-intentioned  zeal  which 
seeks  to  make  men  and  women  virtuous  and  temperate  by 
a law  of  indiscriminate  repression.  I do!  I do!  And 
if  I am  sent  here  of  God  for  nothing  else,  I am  sent  here, 
men  and  brethren,  to  tell  you  that ; and  to  entreat  you  to 
discern  that  most  of  our  methods  for  dealings  with  the  drink 
evil  in  our  day  and  generation  are  tainted  with  falsehood, 
dishonored  by  essential  unreality,  and  discredited  by  wide- 


THE  CHURCH’S  DUTIES. 


2II 


spread  and  consistent  failure.  There  is  a drink  evil,  and 
you  and  I must  not  ignore  it!  There  is  a task  for  Chris- 
tian men  and  women  just  here  to  perform,  and  you  and 
I must  not  shirk  it.  But  let  us  begin  by  trying  to  recognize 
the  facts,  and  then  let  us  strive  to  deal  with  them  in  a 
way  worthy  of  their  portentous  significance. 

“It  is  in  vain  that  philanthropy — or,  at  any  rate,  philan- 
thropy as  feeble,  as  intermittent  and  as  unintelligent  as  is 
much  of  that  which  has,  thus  far,  grappled  with  the  drink 
problem — attempts  such  measures  of  reform  as  simply 
emphasize  the  evils  which  they  seek  to  fight.  Two  or 
three  facts  must  be  plainly  recognized  and  candidly  dealt 
with  before  we  can  even  make  a beginning.  One  of  these 
consists  in  a clear  discrimination  between  conditions.  For 
example,  one  kind  of  man  goes  to  a saloon  to  get  an  in- 
toxicant, and  for  no  other  reason.  Another  goes  there  for 
any  one  of  half-dozen  purposes,  refreshment,  amusement, 
companionship,  information,  physical  easement,  business  ap- 
pointment, or  mere  change;  for  which  last,  you,  my  brother, 
go  next  door,  or  to  the  club,  and  which  all  sensible  people 
regard  as  wholly  innocent.” 


Message  of  Governor  Malcolm  R. 
Patterson 

Xo  the  56th  General  Assembly  of  Xennessee  on  the 
Liquor  Question 


To  the  Honorable  Members  of  the  Senate  and  House  of 
R ep  resen  ta  tives — 

As  governor,  I transmit  the  following  message  for  your 
consideration  on  the  liquor  question : 

Prohibition  is  fundamentally  and  profoundly  wrong  as 
a governmental  policy,  and  in  a country  where  the  largest 
measure  of  freedom  of  action  is  accorded  the  individual  it 
becomes  intolerable. 

For  a State,  through  its  lawmaking  power,  to  attempt 
to  control  what  the  people  shall  eat  and  drink  and  wear, 
except  to  see  that  they  are  protected  from  imposition,  is 
tyranny,  and  not  liberty. 

No  State  has  yet  attempted  to  forbid  what  a man  should 
eat,  but  pure-food  laws  are  necessary  to  see  that  what  he 
eats  is  not  adulterated  or  misbranded,  and  that  he  obtains 
what  he  wants  without  substitution  or  deceit  by  the  dis- 
honest manufacturer  or  dealer. 

No  State  has  yet  attempted  by  law  to  prescribe  the  man- 
ner of  dress  for  the  people,  but  it  would  be  competent  for 
the  State  to  provide  by  law  that  the  goods  should  be  prop- 
erly marked,  so  as  to  prevent  imposition. 

212 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  MESSAGE.  213 


No  State  has  attempted  to  force  the  people  not  to  use 
certain  kinds  of  medicines  or  to  use  certain  others,  but  it 
can  and  ought  to  have  all  medicines  properly  labeled  so  as 
to  prevent  fraud. 

All  such  meddling  and  vexatious  laws  ceased  in  Eng- 
land with  the  growth  of  constitutional  government,  and 
when  the  rights  of  man  were  firmly  established  upon  the 
basis  of  individual  liberty  and  conscience. 

They  passed  in  our  country  when  intolerance  and  early 
fanaticism  gave  way  to  advancing  I'eligious  freedom,  and 
the  Constitution  of  our  own  country  was  framed  for  a self- 
governing  people,  who  reserved  to  themselves  and  guaran- 
teed with  one  another  the  rights  and  privileges  of  freemen. 

But  the  attempt  has  been  made  by  prohibitory  laws  re- 
lating to  drink  to  forbid  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  liquor. 

The  claim  is  made  that  the  use  of  liquor  produces 
drunkenness,  vice,  and  crime,  and  that  public  morals,  the 
welfare  of  the  individual  and  of  the  State,  would  be  best 
conserved  by  its  total  abolition. 

It  is  also  said  that  because  of  the  appalling  consequences 
which  often  follow  the  intemperate  use  of  liquor,  that  legis- 
lation on  this  subject  is  to  be  differentiated  from  legisla- 
tion on  the  other  subjects,  and  is  not  only  justifiable,  but 
desirable  and  necessary. 

While  having  great  respect  for  this  opinion  shared  by 
so  many  of  our  people,  I am  still  convinced  that  any  at 
tempt  by  legislation  to  abolish  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
liquor  is  abortive,  in  that  it  does  not  accomplish  the  result 
hoped  for,  and,  again,  that  it  violates  the  plainest  and  most 
obvious  rule  of  individual  action  and  personal  freedom. 

If  we  can  legislate  against  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  liquor  because  it  often  produces  crime  and  frequently 
becomes  hurtful  to  the  individual  and  society,  can  we  not 
also  legislate  against  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  tobacco 


214 


PROHIBITION. 


or  poisonous  drugs?  And  if  we  begin  such  legislation, 
where  is  it  to  end? 

Shall  we  prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor  to 
all  the  people  because  some,  by  reason  of  intemperate  use, 
ruin  themselves? 

Shall  we  so  legislate  that  a man  who  uses  it  moderately 
and  without  injury  to  himself  and  others  shall  be  wholly 
deprived  of  its  use  because  another  uses  it  immoderately? 

Shall  the  sick  not  use  it,  if  the  physician  prescribes  it, 
because  some  who  are  well  will  abuse  it? 

Shall  its  manufacture  and  sale  be  wholly  forbidden  by 
law  without  regard  to  its  proper  use  or  abuse? 

To  do  so  is  both  unwise  and  destructive. 

The  use  or  non-use  of  liquor  should  be  left  to  the  indi- 
vidual. 

In  my  conception  of  popular  government  and  the  re- 
lation of  the  individual  to  society,  it  is  just  as  much  an 
invasion  of  personal  liberty  to  attempt  by  law  to  forbid  its 
use  as  it  is  by  law  to  forbid  the  use  of  anything  else. 

Character  in  the  individual  is  not  made  by  prohibition 
or  the  withdrawing  of  temptation,  but  by  resistance  to  temp- 
tation. The  scheme  of  God  in  the  redemption  of  man  has 
not  been  to  take  from  him  temptation,  but  to  leave  him 
free  to  resist ; and  as  he  resists,  so  will  be  his  reward. 

Shall  we  destroy  property  to  make  men  honest? 

Shall  we  abolish  the  manufacture  of  gunpowder  be- 
cause men  sometimes  use  it  to  murder  their  fellow-men? 

Can  we  make  men  virtuous  by  law,  or  is  it  only  through 
education,  Christian  influence,  and  the  growth  of  intelli- 
gence, consciousness,  and  responsibility  in  man  himself? 

The  answer  is  but  one,  and  that  is  that  m.an  must 
work  out  his  own  destiny  under  human  law,  as  he  must 
his  own  salvation  under  divine  law. 

The  commandments  of  God  forbid  the  doing  of  certain 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  MESSAGE.  215 

things,  but  his  creatures  have  the  election  to  keep  or  break 
these  commandments. 

Reward  comes  to  those  who  observe  them  and  punish- 
ment to  those  who  do  not. 

In  the  scheme  of  human  government,  man  may  make 
laws  which  forbid,  and  he  may  be  punished  if  he  breaks 
those  laws ; but  to  remove  temptation  by  law,  or  to  make 
men  good  by  law,  is  an  assumption  of  authority  as  unjusti- 
fied by  reason  as  it  is  useless  in  practice. 

LEGISLATION  BY  STATES. 

In  enacting  laws  by  the  State  for  the  suppression  of 
the  liquor  traffic,  certain  things  must  be  kept  in  mind  in 
order  to  know  how  far  such  laws  may  be  effective. 

There  are  a large  number  of  good  people  who  are  not 
informed  on  the  subject,  who  suppose  that  if  this  State 
should  pass  a prohibition  law,  this  would  of  itself  stop  the 
use  of  liquor ; and  if  this  class  were  always  treated  fairly 
by  those  who,  for  personal  or  political  reasons,  use  their 
ignorance  and  intense  devotion  to  a cause  for  selfish  ends, 
then  the  question  could  and  would  be  solved  as  becomes  ra- 
tional men  controlled  by  reason  and  patriotism  rather  than 
by  hysteria  and  blind  malignant  partisanship. 

The  State  is  one  of  a number  of  States,  and  not  one  can 
legislate  contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
or  the  interpretation  which  the  courts  have  made  of  that 
instrument. 

The  State  can  by  law  forbid  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  liquor  within  her  borders,  but  the  State  can  not  prevent 
its  manufacture  or  sale  in  any  other  State,  nor  can  it  pre- 
vent the  shipment  of  liquor  in  unlimited  quantities  from 
any  other  State  into  the  State  of  Tennessee. 

Under  the  interestate  commerce  clause  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  and  its  interpretation  by  the 


2i6 


PROHIBITION. 


courts,  liquor  is  recognized  as  a commodity  of  trade,  just 
as  flour,  clothing,  shoes,  or  any  other  article. 

The  State  is  as  powerless  to  prevent  shipments  of  liquor 
to  the  people  of  Tennessee  as  it  is  to  prevent  the  shipment 
of  any  other  commodity  which  may  enter  into  interstate 
trade. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  until  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment itself  forbids  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor, 
or  refuses  to  allow  its  shipment  to  a State,  it  is  not  pos- 
sible to  have  a prohibition  law.  Those  who  claim  tl'.e 
contrary  either  do  not  know  better,  or,  knowing  better,  de- 
ceive the  people. 

Under  the  conditions  I have  just  named,  it  is  a mis- 
nomer to  call  a law  passed  by  the  State  seeking  to  abolish 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor  a prohibition  law.  The 
only  law  the  State  could  enact  which  could  properly  be 
called  a prohibition  law  or  that  could  possibly  reach  the 
end  said  to  be  desired — namely,  to  prevent  the  use  of  liquor 
— would  be  one  which  would  make  the  use  a crime. 

If  such  a law  should  be  proposed,  however  absurd  it 
might  be,  it  would  bring  the  question  up  directly  to  the 
people;  and  it  would  then  be  seen  how  much  of  sincerity 
or  hypocrisy  was  behind  a movement  which  proposed  to 
abolish  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor  in  our  own  State, 
while  the  people  are  left  free  to  get  all  they  want  and 
drink  as  much  as  they  please  from  other  States. 

I would  no  more  recommend  the  passage  of  a law  to 
make  it  a crime  for  a man  to  use  liquor  than  I would  rec- 
ommend the  passage  of  a law  to  abolish  its  manufacture 
and  sale.  Both  are  absurd;  but  of  the  two,  the  first  would 
be  more  sincere  and  probabl}'^  more  effective  in  preventing 
the  consumption  of  liquor. 

A law  to  prevent  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor 
in  the  State  can  have  only  one  effect,  and  that  would  be 
to  send  from  Tennessee  to  other  States  all  the  money  the 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  MESSAGE.  217 


people  now  spend  for  liquor,  and  would  in  no  wise  prevent 
the  use  of  liquor,  which  is  the  end  desired  by  such  a law, 
or  it  has  no  legitimate  purpose  at  all. 

MANUFACTURE  AND  SALE. 

Aside  from  the  reasons  I have  heretofore  presented  why 
an  Act  to  prevent  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor  should 
not  be  passed,  there  are  other  considerations  which  involve 
the  attitude  of  the  State  toward  her  citizens  who  are  en- 
gaged in  this  business. 

The  manufacturers  of  beer  and  liquor  have  invested 
large  sums  of  money  at  the  invitation  of  the  State,  and  pay 
the  taxes  required  by  her  laws. 

An  Act  to  destroy  the  value  of  their  plants  would  be 
confiscation  and  without  compensation  of  any  sort. 

If  an  individual  should  apply  a torch  and  burn  property 
to  the  ground,  he  could  be  held  responsible  both  civilly  and 
criminally  for  his  act. 

If  the  State  applies  the  torch  of  statutory  confiscation, 
there  is  no  remedy,  for  the  State  is  sovereign  and  has  the 
power  to  destroy. 

But  with  the  power  and  with  no  redress  by  the  indi- 
vidual, should  not  the  State  be  slow  to  apply  the  torch? 
And  if  it  does  in  the  exercise  of  its  sovereignty,  should  it 
not  compensate  the  citizen  for  his  loss? 

In  my  opinion,  no  State  should  exercise  the  power  to 
deprive  the  citizen  of  the  use  of  his  property,  or  to  destroy 
a business  it  has  made  legitimate,  without  just  and  reason- 
able compensation ; and  the  fact  that  the  State  has  the 
power  can  not  and  ought  not  to  change  the  attitude  of  the 
sovereignty  from  the  protector  to  the  punisher  of  its  people. 

OPEN  SALOONS  OR  ILLICIT  SELLERS. 

It  is  often  intolerantly  urged  that  all  who  are  opposed 
to  “State-wide”  prohibition,  so-called,  are  in  league  with 


2i8 


PROHIBITION. 


the  saloon  and  the  abuses  which  are  often  connected  there- 
with. 

It  is  just  as  fair  to  charge  all  who  are  in  favor  of  pro- 
hibition to  be  in  favor  of  the  secret  dive  or  the  bootlegger 
who  plies  his  trade  in  unfrequented  places ; for  when  the 
legal  saloons  are  gone,  the  illegal  sellers  begin. 

The  theory  upon  which  the  legal  sale  of  liquor  is  to 
be  forbidden  by  law  is  based  upon  the  false  premise  that 
the  sale  of  liquor  can  be  abolished  by  law.  The  very  oppo- 
site is  true,  as  is  invariably  shown  by  the  States  where 
prohibition  prevails  and  even  in  localities  where  it  prevails 
by  consent  of  the  people. 

Maine  has  had  a prohibition  law  for  over  fifty  years, 
and  is  notoriously  filled  with  both  open  and  secret  viola- 
tions of  law. 

The  same  is  true  of  Alabama  and  Georgia  and  of  every 
.State  where  prohibition  prevails. 

If  reason  and  experience  are  worth  anything  in  dealing 
with  the  liquor  question,  we  can  assume  the  very  opposite 
for  which  the  average  prohibitionist  contends,  and  that  is 
that  the  abolishment  of  the  sale  of  liquor  by  law  is  an  im- 
possibility — an  empty  dream. 

Like  the  social  evil,  which  exists  in  spite  of  stringent 
laws  to  eradicate  it,  so  will  the  selling  of  liquor  go  on  in 
spite  of  prohibition  laws. 

With  the  knowledge  that  liquor  can  be  bought  and 
shipped  from  other  States,  that  it  will  be  drank  and  sold 
illegally,  the  question  which  ought  to  occur  to  the  wise  and 
conservative  legislator,  and  the  only  one  which  should  prac- 
tically concern  him,  is  whether  it  is  better  to  have  it  sold 
openly  or  secretly ; to  have  it  under  the  control  and  sanc- 
tion of  the  law,  or  whether  it  should  be  outlawed  to  live 
and  thrive  beyond  control. 

In  my  opinion,  the  choice  which  is  logically  and  inevi- 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  MESSAGE.  219 


tably  presented  is  between  regulation  and  control  by  law 
of  the  liquor  traffic  and  secret  or  open  violation  of  the  law. 

It  is  the  choice  between  openness  and  evasion,  between 
fairness  and  hypocrisy,  between  real  temperance  and  its 
counterfeit. 

Any  law  that  will  not  be  respected  and  can  not  be  en- 
forced ought  not  to  be  placed  upon  the  statute  books. 

A law  that  will  brew  lying  and  deceit  in  the  people 
is  not  a temperance  measure,  but  an  intemperance  measure. 

A man  who  buys  liquor  in  a public  place  recognized  by 
law  may  be  doing  himself  and  family  an  injustice;  but  if 
he  obtains  it  in  the  illegal  club,  or  from  the  express  agent 
under  a fictitious  name,  or  from  the  bootlegger,  he  certainly 
does  the  same  amount  of  damage,  and  has  the  added  load 
to  bear  that  he  has  been  a partner  in  deceit  and  the  law’s 
evasion. 

Convinced  as  I have  always  been,  and  now  more  than 
ever,  that  prohibition  laws  are  a failure  and  breed  more 
evil  than  they  cure,  and  firm  in  the  belief  that  regulation 
and  control  is  the  very  best  solution  of  a difficult  problem, 
I am  at  the  same  time  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  some 
dealers  in  liquor  have  defied  and  broken  the  laws,  and  that 
both  State  and  municipal  authorities  have  been  too  lax  in 
the  enforcement  of  existing  laws,  that  there  has  not  been 
enough  vigorous  treatment  of  the  situation  in  the  past  to 
limit  the  number  of  liquor  dealers  or  to  compel  obedience 
to  the  law. 

I am  also  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  there  are  at 
this  time  fewer  saloons  in  Tennessee  than  in  the  last  twenty- 
five  years,  and  those  that  remain  are  more  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  law  than  they  have  ever  been,  and  that  there  is 
less  real  ground  of  complaint  against  them  than  ever  in 
the  State’s  history. 

Men  who  a few  years  before  were  denouncing  prohibi- 
tion at  a time  when  there  were  saloons  in  every  town  of 
the  State,  openly  and  flagrantly  violating  the  law,  are  now 


220 


PROHIBITION. 


loudest  in  their  denunciation  of  the  liquor  traffic,  when 
its  influence  in  politics  is  at  a minimum  and  when  from 
every  county  but  four  the  open  saloon  has  been  banished. 

Just  why  this  reversal  of  opinion  has  come  is  not  for 
me  to  inform  the  Legislature,  but  such  is  the  fact,  if  the 
information  shall  prove  of  value. 

I recommend  that  no  general  prohibition  law  be  passed 
abolishing  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor,  believing,  as 
I have  always  done  and  for  the  reasons  stated,  that  such  a 
law  will  prove  a failure  and  be  a detriment  to  the  State. 

I do  recommend,  however,  high  license,  strict  regula- 
tion, and  forfeiture  of  license  for  violations  of  law. 

In  my  opinion,  if  these  recommendations  were  carried 
into  law,  the  liquor  question  would  be  at  rest  in  our  State, 
and  the  people  as  a whole  would  approve  your  course. 

As  genuine  temperance  measures  and  real  reforms,  they 
are  infinitely  to  be  preferred  to  ill-considered  and  drastic 
legislation  which  provokes  intemperance  under  the  guise 
of  prohibition. 

LEGISLATION  IN  TENNESSEE — LOCAL  CONSENT. 

Beginning  with  the  four-mile  law  passed  in  1877,  tem- 
perance legislation  advanced,  until  this  law  was  successively 
applied  to  towns  of  two  thousand  population  and  under, 
and  to  towns  of  five  thousand  and  under  in  1903. 

Under  these  Acts  the  charters  of  towns  were  surren- 
dered so  that  the  four-mile  law  would  become  effective ; and, 
without  exception,  the  surrender  was  with  local  consent, 
expressed  either  by  direct  vote  of  the  people  or  through  the 
representatives  of  the  people.. 

In  no  single  instance  was  a charter  abolished  without 
consent. 

In  1907  the  four-mile  law,  by  what  is  known  as  the 
Pendleton  bill,  was  extended  to  the  entire  State. 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  MESSAGE.  221 


Under  this  law  Knoxville,  Bristol,  Jackson,  Columbia, 
and  several  other  towns,  surrendered  their  charters. 

At  this  time  there  are  only  four  places  in  Tennessee 
where  liquor  is  legally  sold — to-wit,  Lafollette,  Chatta- 
nooga, Nashville  and  Memphis. 

At  the  last  session  I disapproved  a bill  to  abolish  the 
charter  of  Lafollette  because,  on  a vote  of  the  people,  a 
very  large  majority  were  in  favor  of  retaining  the  charter. 

A segregation  law  was  passed  for  Nashville  and  an 
excise  law  for  Chattanooga,  with  the  consent  of  the  people 
of  those  cities  expressed  by  their  representatives. 

It  is  now  proposed  to  apply  the  four-mile  law  to  the 
four  places  named,  against  the  wishes  of  their  representa- 
tives, without  giving  the  people  an  opportunity  to  vote  on 
the  question  and  against  their  consent. 

It  will  be  seen  that  what  is  now  attempted  constitutes  a 
complete  reversal  of  the  rule  heretofore  applied,  to  allow 
the  people  of  each  community  to  settle  this  question  for 
themselves,  and  makes  an  exception  of  these  four  places  by 
forcing  upon  them  a law  they  do  not  want. 

My  own  position  has  always  been  that  to  force  a pro- 
hibition law  upon  the  people  without  their  consent  is  wholly 
wrong.  This  has  been  the  position  of  the  people  of  the 
State  as  expressed  by  their  votes;  it  has  been  the  principle 
upon  which  Legislatures  have  heretofore  acted ; it  is  the 
principle  of  the  Democratic  party. 

In  this  connection  it  may  shed  some  light  if  we  con- 
sider the  attendant  circumstances  under  which  the  Pen- 
dleton bill  was  passed  and  signed. 

The  chief  argument  used  by  the  advocates  of  that 
measure  was  that  the  passage  of  the  law  would  take  the 
liquor  question  out  of  politics;  and  the  assurance  was  given 
to  me,  as  governor,  that  this  bill  would  end  it  for  all  time. 
Acting  in  good  faith  and  without  the  slightest  idea  that  the 
question  would  arise  in  the  form  of  arbitrary  prohibition. 


222 


PROHIBITION. 


I signed  the  Pendleton  bill,  and  it  became  a law,  though  I 
thought  it  was  opposed  to  the  letter  of  the  platform  upon 
which  I had  been  elected. 

The  majority  of  the  people  of  Tennessee  are  not  de- 
manding a State-wide  prohibition  law. 

There  are  thousands  of  temperance  men  in  Tennessee, 
Republicans  and  Democrats,  who  are  vastly  more  temper- 
ate, both  in  their  speech  and  habits,  than  some  of  the  pro- 
fessional agitators  of  the  question,  who  believe  that  the 
cause  of  temperance  is  best  subserved  by  fair  dealing  and 
under  the  rule  of  consent  rather  than  by  chicanery  and 
under  the  rule  of  force. 

I call  your  attention  to  the  vote  of  the  people  on  this 
question  in  1906. 

In  that  year  the  Democratic  platform  declared  for  local 
option  and  the  Republican  party  for  State-wide  prohibition, 
and  the  nominee  of  the  Democratic  party  was  elected  by 
about  18,000  majority. 

Again  in  1908  the  Democratic  party  re-enacted  a local 
self-government  plank  and  the  Republican  party  again  de- 
clared for  State-wide  prohibition,  and  the  Democratic 
nominee  was  elected  by  about  20,000  majority. 

As  the  governor  nominated  by  Democrats,  I call  the 
especial  attention  of  Democratic  legislators  to  the  fact  that 
the  direct  question  of  local  option  or  State-wide  prohibition, 
as  a party  policy,  was  discussed  within  the  Democratic 
party  last  summer,  and  the  issue  was  decided  by  a sub- 
stantial and  decisive  majority  in  favor  of  local  self-govern- 
ment on  the  liquor  question.  A platform  was  adopted  by 
the  party  favoring  this  principle ; and  while  it  is  not  my 
purpose  to  remind  Democrats  of  their  duty,  I may  well 
inquire ; What  faith  shall  the  people  place  in  our  pledges 
if  we  are  to  adopt  the  Republican  platform  and  abandon 
our  own? 

If  Democrats  should  say  they  are  bound  by  the  instruc- 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  MESSAGE.  223 


tions  of  their  immediate  constituents,  then  I may  further 
inquire.  Why  is  there  necessity  for  a platform  at  all? 
Why  go  through  the  empty  form  of  stating  principles  for 
party  guidance?  And  if  the  State  platform  made  it  for 
any  other  reason  not  considered  binding,  why  should  a 
local  instruction  upon  a proposition  that  affects  other  local- 
ities .alone  be  binding? 

If  the  question  should  be  treated  irrespective  of  plat- 
form, then  is  the  voice  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of 
Tennessee,  twice  expressed,  binding? 

If  the  question  of  platform  and  the  will  of  the  people 
are  both  to  be  ignored  and  the  moral  side  of  the  question 
is  alone  to  be  considered  then  I can,  with  confidence,  urge 
upon  the  members  not  to  pass  a prohibition  law  as  an 
act  of  reprisal  or  with  unseemly  haste,  but  only  after  full, 
careful,  and  mature  deliberation,  weighing  with  impar- 
tiality all  reasons  that  may  be  advanced  for  and  against 
the  proposition. 

If  your  action  shall  be  to  destroy  property  of  millions 
in  value,  is  it  not  right  to  proceed  with  caution  before  this 
is  done?  If  it  shall  deprive  many  persons  of  a livelihood, 
should  you  not  pause  to  be  sure  you  are  right? 

If  it  should  force  upon  an  unwilling  people  a law  which 
will  not  be  respected  and  itself  provoke  immorality,  is  it 
not  your  duty  not  to  pass  it? 

I do  not  wish  to  and  do  not  question  the  motives  of 
members,  for  I presume  your  motives  are  proper,  and  that 
you  wish  not  to  be  responsible  for  bad  legislation,  and  I 
trust  you  may  assume  that  in  thus  addressing  you  I am 
actuated  by  a similar  desire. 

My  right  to  recommend  and  to  give  the  reasons  there- 
for is  as  distinct  as  yours  to  enact  legislation,  and  my  ear- 
nest desire  is  to  act  in  harmony  with  you  so  far  as  my 
sense  of  obligation  to  the  office  I hold  will  permit. 

If  we  can  not  agree  upon  this  question,  I hope  we  may 


224 


PROHIBITION. 


upon  many  others  which  will  benefit  the  State;  and  I can 
assure  you  of  my  co-operation  in  these,  so  far  as  the  power 
of  a governor  may  go. 

MORAL  SIDE  OF  PROHIBITION. 

There  is  a moral  side  to  temperance,  for  we  are  com- 
manded to  be  temperate  in  all  things,  and  temperance  in 
thought  and  speech  is  to  be  commended  equally  as  much  as 
temperance  in  drink;  for  often,  indeed,  intemperance  in 
thought  and  speech  work  more  harm  than  intemperance 
in  drink. 

After  Jesus  had  heard  the  Pharisees,  as  recorded  by 
St.  Matthew  in  the  15th  chapter,  nth  verse.  He  thus  ad- 
dressed the  multitude : 

“Not  that  which  goeth  into  the  mouth  defileth  a man, 
but  that  which  cometh  out  of  the  mouth,  this  defileth  a man.” 

There  is  nothing  in  divine  law  which  makes  prohibition 
itself  a moral  issue,  and  there  is  no  such  general  sentiment 
among  Christian  mankind  as  to  justify  such  characteriza- 
tion. 

England  has  been  a nation  for  centuries,  and  has  sown 
the  seeds  of  civilization  over  the  habitable  globe.  She  has 
given  churchmen,  poets,  philosophers,  and  warriors,  whose 
names  and  fame  are  as  wide  as  the  world;  but  prohibition 
has  never  been  accepted  in  England  as  a moral  issue,  or 
even  a desirable  thing  from  an  economic  standpoint. 

Neither  France,  Germany,  nor  any  of  the  older  nations, 
have  thought  it  was ; nor  has  the  United  States  as  a Gov- 
ernment treated  prohibition  as  a moral  issue. 

Indeed,  its  policy  has  been  the  reverse;  for  it  not  only 
recognizes  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  and  use  liquor, 
but  Congress  has  refused  repeatedly  to  enact  a law  to  pre- 
vent the  shipment  of  liquor  from  other  States  into  prohi- 
bition States. 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  MESSAGE.  225 


In  the  very  large  majority  of  the  States  of  the  Union 
there  is  no  considerable  sentiment  for  prohibition ; and  if 
we  compare  the  moral  tone  of  the  people,  their  intelli- 
gence and  wealth,  in  the  States  where  prohibition  does  not 
prevail  with  the  few  States  where  it  does,  I think  a fair 
and  accurate  observer  would  be  bound  to  conclude  that 
prohibition  neither  elevates  morally,  materially,  nor  intel- 
lectually. 

How  can  it  be  said  to  be  a moral  question  in  Tennessee 
and  not  in  Indiana?  But  in  Indiana  the  fight  against  the 
saloon  is  for  local  option,  and  local  option  is  called  a “moral 
issue”  there. 

In  other  States  the  same  fight  is  made,  and  it  assumes 
different  forms  in  others;  so  the  liquor  question  has  as 
many  so-called  “moral  sides”  as  it  has  different  phases  of 
treatment  by  different  men. 

Why  did  Democrats  and  Republicans  who  believe  that 
prohibition  is  a moral  issue  above  party  ties  and  platforms 
not  vote  for  the  prohibition  candidate  for  President,  in- 
stead of  Bryan  and  Taft,  who  are  both  pronounced  local 
optionists. 

Can  it  ever  be  made  a moral  issue  in  Tennessee  if  the 
right  which  has  been  accorded  all  other  towns  in  the  State 
is  denied  to  Nashville,  Chattanooga,  and  Memphis? 

In  all  fairness,  can  not  it  better  be  called  a personal 
and  political  question  in  Tennessee  rather  than  a moral  one? 

Let  us  now  compare  cities  that  are  under  prohibition 
laws,  with  the  consent  of  the  people,  with  those  where 
liquor  is  still  legally  sold ; and  if  the  comparison  should 
not  show  a distinct  advantage  for  such  cities  as  have  con- 
sented to  pass  under  such  laws,  then  the  argument  in  favor 
of  prohibition  for  cities  who  do  not  consent  to  the  law  is 
sheer  nonsense. 

Let  the  comparison  be  made  between  Knoxville  and 


226 


PROHIBITION. 


Chattanooga.  Who  will  say  that  conditions  in  Knoxville 
are  better  than  in  Chattanooga? 

Are  the  people  happier  or  better  in  Knoxville  than  in 
Chattanooga?  Is  there  more  employment  for  labor,  and 
is  it  paid  better  wages?  Are  rents  higher?  Is  there  more 
building?  Are  more  houses  tenanted  in  Knoxville  than  in 
Chattanooga  ? 

Is  not  the  only  difference  so  far  as  liquor  is  concerned 
that  it  can  be  obtained  in  Chattanooga  legally  and  openly 
and  can  be  obtained  illegally  and  surreptitiously  in  Knox- 
ville? The  prohibition  law  to  which  Knoxville  consented  is 
not  observed,  while  the  laws  are  observed  in  Chattanooga. 

If  the  law  will  not  be  observed  where  the  people  con- 
sent, how  can  we  expect  it  to  be  observed  where  they  do 
not  consent. 

In  Chattanooga  the  testimony  is  that  the  open  saloons, 
under  a wdse  excise  law,  close  at  lo  o’clock  at  night,  are 
never  open  on  Sunday,  and  the  people  do  not  want  a 
change. 

Compare  Nashville  with  any  city  of  its  size  in  the  coun- 
try, and  there  is  not  one  that  has  less  trouble  with  the 
liquor  question,  not  one  that  has  a more  moral  or  law- 
abiding  people ; and  I believe  it  would  be  entirely  safe  to 
say  there  is  less  crime  in  Nashville  with  the  legal  saloon 
and  less  liquor  drank  and  sold  than  in  either  Birmingham, 
Ala.,  or  Atlanta,  Ga.,  under  prohibition  laws. 

The  city  of  IMemphis  contains  a population  conserva- 
tively estimated  at  150,000,  and  the  sentiment  of  her  people 
is  practically  unanimous  against  prohibition.  It  is  not 
confined  to  one  class,  but  embraces  all  classes. 

Alemphis  is  situated  on  the  Mississippi  River,  a great 
interstate  artery,  and  boats  from  North  and  South  dis- 
charge their  cargoes  at  her  wharves. 

The  State  has  not  the  power  to  prevent  the  carrying 
and  landing  by  these  boats  of  liquor,  for  this  trade  would 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  MESSAGE.  227 


come  under  the  protection  of  the  interstate  commerce 
clause  of  the  Constitution. 

Twelve  lines  of  railroad  radiate  from  Memphis  to  all 
points  of  the  compass  and  shipments  of  liquor  on  any  of 
these  roads  would  be  similarly  protected.  Therefore,  with 
unlimited  means  for  obtaining  liquor  and  with  the  senti- 
ment of  the  people  opposed  to  prohibition  law,  what  would 
be  the  result?  An  inevitable  reign  of  lawlessness,  an  out- 
raged citizenship,  and  confusion  worse  confounded. 

What  would  be  true  in  Memphis  in  a corresponding  de- 
gree would  be  true  in  Nashville  and  Chattanooga. 

So  it  is  that  when  the  Democratic  party  declared  that 
these  communities  should  have  the  right  to  decide  for  them- 
selves whether  or  not  liquor  should  be  sold,  it  recognized 
the  right  heretofore  enjoyed  by  other  communities;  and 
its  position  was  fair,  wise,  and  temperate. 

To  follow  this  declaration  is  the  best  solution  of  the 
question ; to  abandon  it  is  the  worst. 

But  if  it  is  said  that  the  selling  of  liquor  in  these  cities 
injures  the  rest  of  the  State,  then  it  is  not  true  that  the  rest 
of  the  State  can  get  the  same  amount  of  liquor  out  of  the 
State  as  within  ? And  is  it  not  true  that  this  is  now  actually 
the  case? 

To  force  a prohibition  law  upon  these  cities  can  not  be 
justified  upon  any  ground  recognizable  by  justice  or  morals. 

It  will  breed  crime  instead  of  preventing  it ; it  will 
weaken  the  faith  of  the  people  in  law  and  constituted  au- 
thority instead  of  strengthening  it. 

It  will  impair  the  revenues  of  the  State,  which  we  can 
ill  afford  to  lose,  and  increase  taxation  without  correspond- 
ing benefits. 

It  will  foment  discord  in  an  already  disordered  State. 

It  will  substitute  the  counterfeit  for  the  genuine,  and 
deteriorate  the  standard  of  truth  and  honor. 

Since  the  day  the  principle  of  self-government  was  sue- 


228 


PROHIBITION. 


cessfully  asserted,  our  race  has  never  been,  and  never  will 
be,  governed  by  a law  to  which  they  have  not  consented. 
It  is  inherent  in  our  traditions,  in  our  blood  and  institu- 
tions, that  any  legislation  which  runs  counter  to  it  will 
prove  a curse,  and  not  a blessing. 

The  very  discussion  of  the  prohibition  question  in  our 
State  has  provoked  angry  and  passionate  utterance. 

Men  high  in  authority,  whose  office,  if  not  their  per- 
sons, should  have  been  respected,  have  been  calumniated 
and  slandered,  sometimes  ignorantly  and  often  willfully. 

We  have  witnessed  the  distressing  spectacle  of  good 
women  and  little  children  arrayed  in  behalf  of  a cause  of 
which  they  know  nothing,  no  matter  how  good  their  inten- 
tions may  be. 

We  have  seen  ministers,  whose  calling  we  reverence  and 
to  whom  the  people  have  the  right  to  turn  for  guidance 
and  consolation  in  spiritual  matters,  descend  from  their 
high  estates  to  make  political  platforms  of  their  pulpits 
and  in  the  name  of  temperance  utter  intemperate  and  in- 
flammatory speech. 

We  have  had  the  new  and  strange  test  applied  to  char- 
acter by  the  self-constituted  righteous,  who  would  pro- 
nounce it  good  or  bad  according  as  its  possessor  was  for  or 
against  prohibition. 

We  have  seen  men  who  have  assumed  the  outward  sem- 
blance of  prohibition,  and  who  never  practiced  it,  side  by 
side  with  some  religionists  who  wear  vestments  of  Christ, 
but  have  never  known  the  spiritual  in  His  teachings,  who 
have  never  applied  to  others  the  Golden  Rule,  and  who  are 
strangers  to  charity  in  its  highest  and  purest  sense. 

We  have  seen  others  who  were  yesterday  seemingly 
unalterably  opposed  to  prohibition,  and  to-day  are  among 
its  most  ardent  advocates. 

Then,  too,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  heard  intolerant 
speech  applied  to  all  ministers  because  a few  have  prosti- 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  MESSAGE.  229 


tuted  their  sacred  calling,  railing  at  religion  because  some 
of  its  professors  are  hypocrites,  and  designating  all  prohibi- 
tionists as  fanatics  because  some  of  them  are  notoriously 
intolerant  and  offensively  ostentatious  in  their  assumption 
of  virtue. 

If  all  of  this  has  come  from  a discussion  of  prohibition, 
what  shall  result  if  it  should  become  a law  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  people? 

In  view  of  these  conditions  and  the  far-reaching  conse- 
quences of  an  Act  you  may  pass,  I again  urge  upon  your 
Honorable  Bodies  that  you  proceed  with  deliberation  and 
caution,  and  with  due  regard  to  the  welfare  of  the  State. 

The  sincere  prohibitionist  (and  there  are  many)  will 
not  urge  the  hasty  and  unseemly  passage  of  a law  which 
he  thinks  is  right,  but  in  which  he  may  be  mistaken. 

I feel  that  the  people  have  expressed  their  opposition 
to  a prohibition  bill,  and  that  the  Democratic  platform,  fa- 
voring local  self-government  is  binding  upon  Democrats, 
and  should  be  persuasive  with  Republicans  because  the 
people  have  indorsed  it.  I,  therefore,  recommend  that  no 
bill  or  bills  be  passed  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  liquor  in  Tennessee. 

I do  recommend  that  a law  be  passed  giving  to  the 
people  of  Lafollette,  Chattanooga,  Nashville  and  Memphis 
the  right  and  opportunity  to  declare  for  themselves  whether 
they  want  liquor  made  and  sold  in  their  communities;  and 
if  they  do,  to  pass  a law  to  prohibit  it ; and  if  they  do  not, 
to  respect  their  wishes. 

In  thus  laying  before  you  \vithout  reserve  and  with  elab- 
oration my  views  as  governor  of  Tennessee,  I have  felt 
responsible  to  the  Democratic  party,  which  has  honored  and 
trusted  me,  and  to  my  oath  of  office. 

It  has  not  been  done  in  anger  or  in  a spirit  of  intoler- 
ance, for  I have  always  been  willing  to  accord  to  others 
what  I claim  for  myself ; and  if  I can  help  to  bring  a 


230 


PROHIBITION. 


measure  of  good  to  Tennessee  and  peace  to  her  people,  I 
shall  feel  repaid  for  all  the  vexations  of  office  and  all  the 
pain  inflicted  by  inconsiderate  men. 

I pray  God  to  give  me  opportunity  and  strength  to  help 
Tennessee;  but  whether  this  should  be  given  or  withheld, 
I have  still  the  consciousness  and  consolation  that  I have 
been  true  to  my  people,  and,  beyond  all,  to  myself. 

I have  never  faltered  or  wavered  from  the  time  I first 
came  before  the  people  in  my  fixed  belief  that  prohibition 
was  essentially  wrong  without  the  consent  of  the  people ; 
and  now,  after  a service  of  two  years  as  governor  and  with 
full  opportunity  to  know  and  to  speak  with  intelligence,  I 
warn  you  against  the  evils  which  will  follow  the  passage 
of  a compulsory  prohibition  bill. 

An  obnoxious,  undesirable,  and  punitive  law  will  bring 
forth  an  ugly  brood,  and  nothing  good  or  true  or  lasting 
can  come  of  it. 

Whatever  you  may  do,  I can  not  question  your  power, 
and  the  sole  responsibility  is  yours ; but  from  me,  as  gov- 
ernor, you  have  a message  of  truth,  and  my  duty  is  done. 

Malcolm  R.  Patterson, 
Governor  of  the  State  of  Tennessee. 

January  ti,  1909. 


Governor  Pattersons  Veto 


Of  tke  State- W^ide  Prokibition  Bill  of  Tennessee 


“To  the  Honorable  Members  of  the  Senate — Under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  the  power  of  veto  is  be- 
stowed upon  the  President,  and  in  most  of  the  States,  in- 
cluding Tennessee,  it  is  bestowed  upon  the  governor. 

“The  prerogative  is  of  ancient  origin,  and  in  our  coun- 
try it  has  sometimes  been  said  that  its  proper  use  was  to 
prevent  legislative  encroachment  upon  the  rights  of  the 
executive ; but  this  view  was  only  partial,  and  the  power 
has  been  given  a much  wider  range  and  meaning. 

“Hamilton  said  of  the  veto  of  the  President : Tt  not 
only  serves  as  a shield  to  the  Executive,  but  it  furnishes  an 
additional  security  against  the  enactment  of  improper  laws. 
It  establishes  a salutary  check  upon  the  legislative  body, 
calculated  to  guard  the  community  against  the  effects  of 
faction,  precipitancy  or  of  any  impulse  unfriendly  to  the 
public  good  which  may  happen  to  influence  a majority  of 
that  body.’ 

“In  his  fourth  message  to  Congress,  President  Polk,  in 
discussing  the  power,  used  this  language : Tt  is  not  alone 
hasty  and  inconsiderate  legislation  that  he  is  required  to 
check,  but  if  at  any  time  Congress  shall,  after  apparently 
full  deliberation,  resolve  on  measures  which  he  deems  sub- 
versive of  the  Constitution  or  of  the  vital  interests  of  the 
country,  it  is  his  solemn  duty  to  stand  in  the  breach  and  re- 
sist them.’ 


231 


232 


PROHIBITION. 


“The  quaint  but  thoroughly  sensible  comment  of  Ben- 
jamin Franklin  on  the  necessity  of  the  veto  was : ‘A  single 
man  may  be  afraid  or  ashamed  of  doing  injustice.  A body 
is  never  either  one  or  the  other  of  it  is  strong  enough.’  ” 

ATTITUDE  TOWARD  BILL. 

“In  a message  heretofore  transmitted  I urged  against 
the  passage  of  a law  that  would  deprive  the  people  of  the 
communities  where  liquor  is  now  sold,  of  the  right  to  settle 
this  question  for  themselves. 

I pointed  out  that  it  was  a right  heretofore  enjoyed  by 
other  communities,  gave  reasons  why  it  was  neither  just 
nor  expedient  to  make  exception,  and  urged  that  the  only 
fair  and  legitimate  way  to  deal  with  them  was  in  accord- 
ance with  established  precedent  and  under  the  principle  of 
local  self-government  as  declared  by  the  Democratic  party. 

“I  recommended  that  a law  be  passed  giving  the  people 
an  opportunity  to  express  their  wishes,  and  stood  pledged 
and  would  have  approved  any  legislation  which  would  have 
carried  their  will  into  effect. 

“But  the  measure  presented  for  my  approval  not  only 
denies  these  communities  a right  to  be  heard,  but  arbi- 
trarily forces  upon  them  a law  which  they  do  not  want  and 
to  which  they  will  never  willingly  consent. 

“Where  can  the  justification  be  found  for  thus  disre- 
garding inherent  and  acknowledged  rights  which  have  here- 
tofore been  held  sacred  and  inviolate? 

AGAINST  WILL  OF  PEOPLE. 

“Does  it  not  set  up  the  despotism  of  a legislative  ma- 
jority against  the  will  of  the  people? 

“Is  it  the  impartial  result  of  calm,  intelligent  reflec- 
tion, or  was  it  conceived  in  haste  and  born  in  an  atmos- 
phere so  charged  with  excitement  and  passion  as  precluded 
reason  and  deliberation? 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  VETO. 


233 


“Would  you  have  passed  this  measure  if  you  had  been 
left  free  to  exercise  your  function  as  legislators  without 
other  thought  than  that  of  the  public  good,  without  other 
influences  save  those  which  should  surround  a public  servant 
in  the  performance  of  a public  act? 

“Would  those  who  voted  for  this  bill  to  become  a law 
have  done  so  if  any  right  of  their  own  locality  was  in- 
volved ? 

“Would  they  not  resent  interference  by  other  members 
if  conditions  were  reversed  and  bitterly  assail  the  tyranni- 
cal exercise  of  a power  which  would  deprive  the  people 
of  their  own  communities  of  a voice  in  their  own  affairs. 

“Convinced  as  I am  that  your  action  is  unfair  and 
precipitate,  harmful  to  the  State  and  destructive  of  the  prin- 
cipal of  local  self-government,  I shall  ask  a reconsideration 
with  the  hope  that  you  may  agree  with  me,  and  if  you  do 
not  with  the  knowledge  that  I have  exhausted  all  my  con- 
stitutional power  to  prevent  unwise  and  undemocratic  leg- 
islation. 

“I,  therefore,  return  Senate  Bill  No.  i with  my  disap- 
proval and  assign  the  reasons  which  follow : 

REASONS  FOR  VETO. 

“1.  As  Democratic  governor  I feel  it  a duty  and  a sacred 
obligation  to  sustain  the  platform  of  the  Democratic  party 
which  distinctly  states  the  doctrine  of  local  self-government, 
and  this  measure  directly  opposes,  defies,  and  destroys  it. 

“2.  As  the  governor  of  all  the  people,  holding  my  mis- 
sion from  the  majority,  I protest  in  their  name  against  an  act 
which  will  set  aside  and  hold  for  naught  their  recorded  will. 

“3.  I veto  this  bill  because  experience  has  taught  the 
lesson,  without  a single  exception,  that  no  arbitrary  pro- 
hibition law  was  ever  obeyed,  and  that  its  enaction  brings  no 
settlement  of  the  question,  but  rather  leaves  it  like  a burr 
on  the  body  politic  to  irritate  and  inflame. 


234 


PROHIBITION. 


“Such  has  been  the  case  in  Maine,  where  after  a test 
of  more  than  fifty  years  under  a prohibition  law,  notoriously 
evaded  and  defied  for  all  that  time,  it  still  remains  an  ac- 
tive political  question  to  vex  and  harass  the  people. 

“In  Kansas,  Georgia,  Alabama  and  IMississippi  we  are 
to-day  witnessing  the  same  disastrous  and  distressing  re- 
sults, and  there  is  nothing  in  the  situation  in  Tennessee 
which  will  lead  us  to  hope  that  condition  will  be  different. 

“4.  I will  not  approve  a law,  by  whatever  name  it  may 
be  called,  or  whatever  mistaken  notions  of  morality  may 
have  influenced  it,  which  will  destroy  property,  reduce  the 
revenue  of  the  State,  increase  taxation,  take  the  money 
of  our  people  and  send  it  abroad,  foment  discord  instead 
of  promoting  peace,  and  impair  the  dignity  of  the  Com- 
monwealth. 


WILL  FOSTER  HYPOCRISY. 

“5.  In  the  name  of  temperance  I refuse  assent  to  an 
intemperate  measure  which  will  cause  more  evils  than  it 
pretends  to  cure,  and  in  the  name  of  morality  I will  not 
sanction  a law  that  will  foster  hypocrisy  and  invite  evasion 
and  deceit  in  the  people. 

“6.  For  the  manhood  of  Tennessee,  proven  on  every 
field  of  war,  and  exemplified  in  all  her  glorious  history  of 
peace,  I do  not  approve  a legislative  guardianship  which 
would  make  weaklings  of  her  men  instead  of  leaving  them 
unhampered  and  unfettered  by  onerous  and  sumptuary  laws 
interfering  with  their  personal  rights  and  privileges. 

“7.  For  the  youth  who  will  bear  our  burdens  when  we 
are  gone,  whose  bodies,  minds  and  souls  should  be  robust 
with  the  hardy  virtues  of  the  race  from  which  they  sprung, 
I wmuld  forbid  a law  which  would  teach  and  set  before 
them  daily  lessons  of  duplicity  and  evasion. 

“8.  In  the  name  of  our  women,  whose  true  and  heavenly 
mission  is  to  bless  the  home  and  teach  honor,  courage  and 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  VETO. 


235 


truth  to  their  children,  who  are  the  strength,  the  inspira- 
tion, and  the  saving  grace  of  man,  I condemn  any  measure 
which  will  bring  even  a part  of  them  into  the  heated  and 
poisoned  atmosphere  of  political  strife. 

RIGOROUS  ENFORCEMENT. 

“Vicious  and  undemocratic  as  I believe  this  measure  to 
be,  forced  upon  communities  without  their  consent,  it  will 
be  my  duty  as  governor  to  try  to  enforce  it,  and  no  man 
who  breaks  it  need  expect  from  me  any  different  treatment 
than  will  be  accorded  other  violators,  but,  before  you  make 
it  the  law  over  my  veto,  you  shall  not  in  the  name  of  mor- 
ality com.mit  an  immoral  act,  and  in  the  name  of  the  public 
welfare  commit  this  political  crime  without  hearing  through 
me  the  voice  of  an  indignant,  protesting,  and  outraged 
people. 

“In  the  name  of  the  South,  and  as  governor  of  a State 
which  is  one  of  its  ancient,  most  conservative  and  illustrious 
members,  I may  not  be  able  to  avert,  but  I can,  and  do 
sound  the  signal  of  danger  this  new  and  strange  spirit  of 
radicalism  which  seems  now  to  possess  us,  the  present  bane 
of  our  civilization,  the  future  peril  of  our  land.  Our  fathers 
fought  as  no  soldiers  did  since  war  among  the  human  race 
began,  suffered  as  none  others  have  suffered,  died  as  none 
others  have  died  since  the  annals  of  men  were  first  re- 
corded. It  was  not  for  conquest,  pelf  or  power,  not  to 
force  their  views  or  institutions  upon  others,  but  for  the 
holy  purpose  of  preserving  the  rights  of  their  States,  and 
that  sacred  principle  of  self-government  dear  to  every 
Southern  heart,  sprinkled  with  Southern  tears  and  bap- 
tized in  the  purest  Southern  blood. 

“It  has  been  their  pride  and  boast  that,  while  they  lost 
on  the  field  of  force,  they  won  on  the  field  of  honor  and 
saved  the  treasure  from  all  the  dangers  and  perils  which 
beset  them,  and  left  it  a heritage  to  their  children  above 


236 


PROHIBITION. 


price,  secure  in  possession,  separate  and  apart  from  all  that 
could  tempt  or  betray. 

“Shall  we,  who  have  this  trust  to  guard  and  keep,  yield 
it  now  at  the  first  wave  of  passion,  at  the  first  assault  of 
power? 


TAWDRY  FANATICISM. 

“Our  fathers  did  not  learn  the  canting  phrase,  they  were 
strangers  to  cheap  and  tawdry  fanaticism;  they  would  have 
resented  with  armed  force  an  attempt  to  interfere  with 
their  rights,  except  with  their  own  consent. 

“They  made  the  South  strong  and  great  above  the  rest, 
for  they  were  great  and  strong  above  the  rest  in  all  the 
graces  that  adorn  mankind. 

“They  had  their  ideals,  and  these  were  high  and  true 
and  pure. 

“Around  the  home  the  men  of  the  South  drew  the  circle 
of  their  love  and  courage,  where  none  dared  intrude  to  ruin 
or  mar.  In  that  domain  woman  was  the  jewel,  the  orna- 
ment, the  guiding  hand,  the  sweet  pervading  influence. 

“Honor  lived  in  the  elder  days  guarded  with  such  jealous 
care  that  men  were  loath  to  scathe  it,  and  truth  was  loved 
which  made  men  fear  to  lie. 

“These  men  and  women  who  made  the  South  immortal 
needed  no  law  to  make  them  great  and  good,  for  they  held 
the  title  by  right  of  sovereign  manhood  and  spotless  wo- 
manhood. If  their  children  are  true  to  them,  they  will 
stand  as  they  stood,  do  as  they  would  have  done.  Re- 
spectfully submitted,  Malcolm  R.  Patterson, 

Governor  of  the  State  of  Tennessee. 

“January  19,  1909.” 


G 


overnor 

M 


Patterson  s V eto  of  tke 
anufacturers  Bill 


“To  the  Honorable  Members  of  the  Senate — I return 
Senate  Bill  No.  ii,  entitled,  ‘An  act  to  prohibit  the  manu- 
facture in  this  State  of  intoxicating  liquors  for  the  purpose 
of  sale,’  with  my  disapproval. 

“Every  law  should  be  founded  upon  some  reason  which 
will  be  accepted  by  persons  of  ordinary  intelligence  as  valid 
and  sufficient  for  its  adoption. 

“If  any  measure  proposed  can  accomplish  no  good, 
either  affirmatively  or  negatively,  it  should  be  placed  in  the 
category  of  useless  legislation,  and  therefore  to  be  discarded 
as  unworthy  the  attention  of  a lawmaking  body. 

“Let  us  apply  this  elementary  test  to  the  bill  under  con- 
sideration. 

“In  forbidding  the  manufacture  in  this  State  of  liquor, 
I assume  the  legislative  intent  is  to  prevent  its  use  by  the 
people  of  Tennessee. 

“This  may  be  recognized  as  proper  and  desirable,  but 
if  the  people  of  Tennessee  can  obtain  from  the  manufac- 
turers and  dealers  of  other  States  all  the  liquor  they  want, 
and  the  State  can  not  affect  that  right  by  any  law  it  may 
pass,  then  it  is  at  once  apparent  that  this  measure  will  fail 
in  its  purpose. 

“As  pointed  out  in  a message  heretofore  transmitted  to 
the  General  Assembly,  liquor  is  a subject  of  interstate  com- 
merce, and  the  Legislature  is  without  power  to  prevent  its 

237 


238 


PROHIBITION. 


shipment  from  other  States,  in  any  quantities  that  may  be 
desired,  to  the  people  of  Tennessee. 

“If,  in  addition,  it  is  true  that  liquor  can  not  under  the 
law  be  bought  at  all  in  Tennessee,  then  the  manufacture  of 
it  in  this  State  to  be  sold  in  other  States  can  have  no  pos- 
sible legal  relation  to  its  sale  or  consumption  in  Tennessee 
and  this  bill  becomes  a mere  legislative  vagary. 

“Every  dollar  hereafter  spent  for  it  is  to  be  withdrawn 
from  our  own  people  and  from  circulation  in  our  own 
State. 

“We  have  a population  of  upwards  of  2,500,000,  and 
the  vast  majority  of  these  constitute  the  households  of  the 
cities  and  country  districts. 

“Of  all  the  number  of  households  there  are  compara- 
tively few  who  do  not  in  some  form  use  liquor,  and  its  use 
is  often  proper  and  without  criticism  of  any  sort,  involving 
no  moral  or  physical  delinquency. 

“It  is  a matter  of  common  knowledge  that  physicians 
often  prescribe  it  for  the  old,  to  those  who  have  received 
wounds  or  met  with  accidents,  to  the  sick  and  convalescents 
from  disease  and  that  wine,  ale  and  beer  have  their  recog- 
nized and  legitimate  uses  together  dissociated  from  in- 
temperance. 

“I  assert  that  to  arrange  our  laws  so  that  all  the  liquor 
used  in  Tennessee  must  be  bought  in  other  States  and 
made  in  other  States,  and  exclude  our  people  from  the 
right  to  buy  it  at  home  and  make  it  at  home,  is  such  con- 
scious or  unconscious  folly  as  no  lawmaking  body  should 
want  to  be  responsible  for,  and  no  governor  could  be  ex- 
pected to  approve. 

“The  right  to  sell  has  already  been  declared  to  be  illegal 
and  this  measure  now  prohibits  the  manufacture  of  spir- 
itous,  vinous  and  malt  liquors,  and,  should  it  become  a law, 
the  distillers,  brewers  and  makers  of  wine,  must  either  quit 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  VETO. 


239 


their  business  or  subject  themselves  to  heavy  fines  and  pen- 
alties prescribed  for  violation  of  this  act. 

WILL  EVADE  THE  LAW. 

“Those  who  are  honest  and  desirable  as  citizens  will 
obey,  and  those  who  are  dishonest  and  undesirable  will  in- 
fract and  evade  the  law. 

“If  liquor  can  not  be  sold  in  this  State,  why  interdict  its 
manufacture?  Why  destroy  property  of  great  value? 

“If  the  answer  is  that  liquor  made  in  Tennessee  can  be 
more  readily  obtained  by  our  people,  this  supposes  that  the 
law  against  its  sale  will  be  violated  and  is  an  admission  that 
the  legislation  forbidding  its  sale  without  the  consent  of 
the  people  was  ill-advised  and  will  prove  ineffective. 

“If  it  is  said  that  we  must  protect  the  people  of  other 
States  from  liquor,  wine  and  beer  made  in  Tennessee,  and 
this  is  the  intent  of  the  Legislature,  then  if  this  purpose 
should  be  expressed  in  the  title  or  body  of  the  act,  you 
would  be  without  power  to  pass  such  a law,  as  it  would 
be  plainly  unconstitutional,  for  you  must  legislate  for  the 
people  of  Tennessee  and  these  alone. 

“With  a law  already  enacted  forbidding  the  sale  in  this 
State,  and  without  power  to  legislate  for  the  people  of 
other  States,  what,  may  I ask  again,  can  be  the  reason  or 
policy  for  this  wanton  and  destructive  act,  which  strikes 
down  and  gives  nothing  in  return? 

“The  distillers  and  brewers  of  the  State  have  been  in- 
vited and  encouraged  to  invest  their  capital  in  manufac- 
turing plants  and  have  done  so  in  good  faith  under  the 
protection  of  our  laws.  They  have  rights  which  should  be 
protected,  they  have  property  which  should  not  be  de- 
stroyed. 

“In  the  cities  of  Knoxville,  Chattanooga,  Nashville,  and 
Memphis,  the  establishment  of  breweries  was  encouraged 
by  the  commercial  bodies,  the  people  considered  them  as 


240 


PROHIBITION. 


valuable  acquisitions  which  increased  values,  gave  employ- 
ment to  labor  and  added  to  business  activities. 

“The  State  itself  has  treated  them,  and  the  distillers,  as 
other  manufacturers  and  merchants,  taxing  them  on  their 
property  and  for  their  privileges,  and  has  employed  the  rev- 
enue thus  raised  for  the  purposes  of  Government. 

NO  COMPENSATION. 

“It  proposes  now  to  treat  this  class  of  her  citizens  as 
unworthy,  to  destroy  their  business  without  compensation, 
to  deprive  a portion  of  her  laboring  men  of  their  livelihood, 
and  to  bring  want  to  many  families. 

“If  this  is  right,  then  the  people  made  a mistake  in 
electing  me  governor,  for  I condemn  it  without  reserve ! 
And  if  it  is  wrong,  the  people  made  a mistake  in  electing 
you  to  the  Legislature. 

“The  right  to  life,  liberty  and  property  is  now  recog- 
nized throughout  the  civilized  world.  It  was  inherent  in 
man  before  organized  society;  it  has  never  been  denied 
except  in  case  of  war  or  public  necessity ; it  has  never  been 
taken  away  by  the  hand  of  power  without  consummating  a 
grievous  wrong.  Among  the  inalienable  rights,  that  to 
property  is  sacred  as  the  right  to  live  and  be  free,  and  no 
Government  can  exercise  the  power  of  destruction  without 
injuring  itself  even  more  than  the  unhappy  victims  of 
its  tyranny. 

“In  this  case  there  is  no  redress  in  the  courts  to  compel 
compensation,  for  it  is  the  act  of  the  State,  and,  however 
bad  the  law  may  be,  it  must  be  acquiesced  in,  but  the 
principle  is  obnoxious  to  every  sense  of  fairness,  to  everj" 
idea  of  justice,  to  every  legitimate  function  of  Government 
itself. 


GOVERNOR  PATTERSON’S  VETO. 


241 


PRECEDENT  ESTABLISHED. 

“What  of  the  precedent  it  makes? 

“If  this  Legislature  shall  destroy  all  the  distilleries  and 
breweries,  why  can  not  the  next  forbid  the  raising  or  sell- 
ing of  the  grains  or  the  cultivations  of  the  grape  out  of 
which  spirituous,  malt  or  vinous  liquors  are  made? 

“Shall  this  or  some  future  Legislature  prevent  the 
farmer  from  raising  or  selling  tobacco  or  the  manufacturer 
from  placing  it  on  the  market? 

“If  we  thus  start,  where  shall  we  end?  It  is  better  not 
to  make  the  start. 

“In  the  exercise  of  my  constitutional  power  as  gov- 
ernor, I veto  this  measure  and  ask  its  reconsideration: 

“First — Because  it  ruthlessly  deprives  the  State  of  rev- 
venue  without  any  sort  of  corresponding  benefit. 

“Second — It  discriminates  against  our  own  people  in 
favor  of  the  people  of  other  States. 

“Third — It  destroys  the  property  of  the  citizen  without 
compensation. 

“Fourth — It  makes  a dangerous  precedent,  humiliates 
Tennessee  and  lowers  the  place  of  dignity  she  has  occupied 
as  one  of  the  proudest  and  most  conservative  of  the  Union. 

“Fifth — It  violates  the  will  of  the  people  twice  ex- 
pressed at  the  ballot  box,  offends  against  their  sense  of 
justice,  and,  under  the  plea  of  civic  righteousness,  sacri- 
fices a great  moral  principle  of  government  at  the  very  altar 
where  it  should  be  guarded  and  defended.  Respectfully 
submitted,  Malcolm  R.  Patterson, 

Governor  of  the  State  of  Tennessee. 

“February  3,  1909.” 


Growtk  in  Population 

Xkc  Effects  of  Prokibition  on  tke  Development 
of  States 

PROGRESS  CHECKED  AND  ADVANTAGES  NULLIFIED  BY 
UNWISE  LAWS. 

{Compiled  from  the  United  States  Census  Reports.) 


Three  only  of  the  States  of  the  Union  have,  according 
to  the  census  reports,  ever  suffered  a decrease  in  popula- 
tion. One  of  these,  Nevada,  is  a mining  State,  exclusively, 
and  the  fluctuation  in  its  population  is  due  to  the  transient 
nature  of  mining  population,  which  comes  and  goes  as 
mining  excitement  arises  or  subsides.  The  two  other  States 
suffering  a decrease  in  population,  Maine  and  New  Hamp- 
shire, were  prohibition  States,  and  the  loss  occurred  to 
them  during  a decade  of  intense  prohibitory  agitation.  This 
might  seem  merely  accidental,  if  it  were  not  given  signifi- 
cance by  the  more  general  fact  that  all  States,  without  ex- 
ception, which  have  adopted  prohibitory  laws,  have  increased 
in  population  less  rapidly  after  their  adoption  than  before, 
and  also  by  the  fact  that  in  a majority  of  the  States  the 
repeal  of  the  law  was  followed  by  an  increased  percentage 
of  growth  in  population  over  that  enjoyed  by  them  under 
prohibition.  Among  States,  furthermore,  similarly  situated 
geographically,  and  with  the  same  density  of  population  per 
242 


GROWTH  OF  POPULATION. 


243 


square  mile,  the  prohibition  States  have  shown  during  the 
period  in  which  they  were  subject  to  the  law  an  increase  in 
population  much  smaller  than  that  of  the  non-prohibition 
States. 

The  decrease  in  growth  in  the  newer  States  of  Iowa, 
Kansas,  South  Dakota  and  North  Dakota,  caused  by  pro- 
hibition, is  most  remarkable,  since  all  the  conditions  of 
those  States,  except  the  blighting  influence  of  prohibition, 
were  of  the  character  most  conducive  to  rapid  development. 
Yet,  notwithstanding  all  their  natural  attractions  and  favor- 
able conditions,  Iowa,  which  had  increased  in  population  36 
per  cent,  between  1870  and  1880,  under  license,  increased 
only  17  2-3  per  cent,  between  1880  and  1890,  under  pro- 
hibition, while  in  Kansas  the  increase  in  growth  fell  from 
173  per  cent.,  between  1870  and  1880,  under  license,  to  43 
per  cent.,  between  1880  and  1890,  and  to  less  than  4 per 
cent,  between  1890  and  1900,  under  prohibition.  The  in- 
crease in  population  in  South  and  North  Dakota,  between 
1880  and  1890,  when  they  had  license,  was  over  278  per 
cent.  Prohibition  went  into  effect  in  these  States  in  1890. 


^^Beer  and  tke  City  Liquor 
Protlem 


REVIEW  OF  AN  ARTICLE  BY  GEORGE  KIBBE  TURNER,  PUBLISHED 
IN  SEPTEMBER  ISSUE  OF  MCCLURE's  MAGAZINE. 


“Beer  and  the  City  Liquor  Problem,”  by  George  Kibbe 
Turner,  which  appeared  in  the  September,  1909,  number  of 
McClure’s  Magazine,  is  interesting  because  entertainingly 
written. 

It  is  fortunate  for  the  truth  concerning  the  liquor  indus- 
tries of  the  United  States,  by  which  we  mean  the  brewing, 
wine-growing  and  distilling  trades,  that  from  time  to  time 
some  capable  writer  should  select  them  as  objects  of  his 
attention. 

It  is  to  be  regretted,  however,  that  some  of  these  writers, 
having  in  mind  only  the  preparation  of  articles  written  to 
engage  public  attention  from  the  x\nti-Saloon  League  view- 
point, write  so  often  with  scant  knowledge  of  actual  condi- 
tions in  the  industries  they  attack.  They  give  their  readers 
a few  ounces  of  undisputed  truth  mingled  with  many  hun- 
dred-weights of  erroneous  statements  and  unfriendly  com- 
ment, followed  frequently  by  proposed  remedies  for  the  ills 
complained  of,  which  seem  absurd  to  men  who  have  practi- 
cal knowledge  of  the  questions  discussed. 

Had  the  McClure  article  been  written  without  prohibition 
bias,  it  might  have  been  a desirable  contribution  to  current 
economic  criticism.  Mr.  Turner,  we  are  sure,  does  not 
244 


CITY  LIQUOR  PROBLEM. 


245 


mean  to  be  unfair,  but  writing  from  the  Anti-Saloon  League 
standpoint  in  his  discussion  of  the  city  liquor  problem,  he 
easily  drops  into  some  of  the  errors  of  the  prohibitionist 
when  treating  a subject  which  he  approaches  in  no  friendly 
spirit. 

His  contribution  is  valuable  as  offering  cumulative  evi- 
dence of  the  true  character  and  composition  of  the  Anti- 
Saloon  League.  He  bears  testimony  to  the  fact  that  it  is 
a Protestant  Church  organization,  that  it  is  permeated  with 
native  Americanism,  which  is  a polite  synonym  for  the  anti- 
foreign  Knownothingism  of  bygone  days,  and  that  it  is  in 
politics.  We  quote  his  exact  words : “The  program  of  this 
new  movement  has  demonstrated  a high  order  of  political 
ability.” 

All  of  this  reduced  to  plain  language  means  that  this 
Protestant  religious  body  (heaven  save  the  mark!)  is  in 
politics  and  that  it  has  demonstrated  a high  order  of  apti- 
tude for  political  manipulation  and  scheming.  Right  here 
we  see  the  signs  of  the  ounce  of  fact  with  the  ton  or  more 
of  inaccurate  statement.  It  would  have  been  entirely  cor- 
rect to  state  that  the  Anti-Saloon  League  was  a Methodist 
Church  organization  instead  of  a Protestant  church  organi- 
zation. 

The  bishops  and  clergy  of  the  Episcopal  Church  are 
openly  at  war  with  the  doctrine  of  legislative  prohibition ; 
the  German  Lutherans  are  in  opposition  everywhere ; the 
Presbyterians  are  divided  on  the  question,  and  some  of  the 
minor  Protestant  sects  are  indifferent  or  opposed.  All  of 
these  opponents  refuse  to  merge  their  identity  into  a “skill- 
fully organized  political  force.”  Therefore  it  cannot  truth- 
fully be  called  a Protestant  church  combine,  because  so 
many  Protestant  churches  refuse  to  countenance  it  or  to  be 
led  or  driven  into  it. 

In  Ohio,  where  this  review  is  written  and  where  we  can 
speak  with  accuracy  of  local  conditions — when  a county 


246 


PROHIBITION. 


gives  a “dry”  majority,  every  spot  in  the  county  becomes 
“dry.”  When  it  gives  a “wet”  majority,  all  spots  hereto- 
fore “dry”  under  a local  vote  remain  “dry.”  Under  this 
one-sided  arrangement,  several  cities  in  Ohio  with  popula- 
tions ranging  from  20,000  to  50,000,  and  which  gave  “wet” 
majorities  of  1,700  and  upward,  have  been  forced  into  the 
“dry”  column  by  the  rural  vote  of  the  counties  wherein  such 
cities  are  located.  This  overriding  of  the  principle  of  home 
rule  elicits  no  objection  from  Mr.  Turner,  although  he  ad- 
mits that  under  such  conditions  sumptuary  laws  are  difficult 
or  impossible  of  enforcement  in  the  cities. 

Of  all  the  magazine  articles  bearing  on  various  phases 
of  the  liquor  question,  printed  in  the  last  two  or  three  years, 
many  have  been  of  the  type  we  are  commenting  on.  So  long 
as  some  magazine  publishers  are  willing  to  pay  for  produc- 
tions of  that  stripe,  they  will  naturally  be  furnished  to 
order,  supplemented  by  encouragement  from  the  Anti-Sa- 
loon League.  And  so  long  as  the  present  prohibition  breeze 
blows  over  the  land,  many  readers  will  swallow  such  publi- 
cations with  the  usual  lack  of  mastication  and  consequent 
mental  indigestion.  It  is  only  necessary  to  print  something 
in  this  country  to  have  it  believed.  In  a land  where  nearly 
all  can  read,  but  few  do  any  serious  thinking,  printers’  ink 
is  a power. 

What  Mr.  Turner  calls  the  business  “miracle”  of  the 
brewing  industry  is  scarcely  more  of  a miracle  than  the 
industrial  progress  in  many  other  lines — and  the  evolution 
from  the  “rule  of  thumb”  brewers  of  the  past  to  the  up-to- 
date  scientifically  accurate  beer  makers  of  today  is  no  more 
remarkable  than  the  transition  from  the  first  rude  cars  and 
pigmy  engines  of  early  railroad  ventures  to  the  palace  Pull- 
mans and  hundred-ton  engines  of  the  present,  nor  is  the 
increase  in  the  consumption  of  beer  more  astounding  than 
the  increase  in  American  travel.  Nor  is  it  greater  than 


CITY  LIQUOR  PROBLEM. 


247 


the  expansion  of  innumerable  other  industries  producing 
both  necessities  and  luxuries. 

The  “miracle”  of  beer  is  not  to  be  compared  to  that  of 
steel  expansion.  The  early  steel  makers  of  this  country 
were  far  behind  the  early  German  beer  boilers  in  crudity  of 
appliances  and  in  paucity  of  production.  The  early  steel 
makers  began  with  a few  pounds  a day  and  an  output  of 
1,000  pounds  daily  was  something  to  excite  comment.  With 
the  invention  of  the  Bessemer  process,  the  cost  of  steel 
production  became  relatively  infinitesimal  and  the  first-gen- 
eration steel  maker,  wisely  keeping  his  discovery  a compara- 
tive secret,  grew  rich  rapidly. 

The  prosperous  first-generation  brewers  may  have  kept 
accounts  on  their  safedoors  or  in  their  hatbands,  as  Mr. 
Turner  claims,  and  no  doubt  have  displayed  some  of  the 
amiable  incongruities  of  the  “nouveatix  riches,”  but  as  a 
rule  they  have  been  home-makers  and  creditable  heads  of 
families — usually  large  families — all  in  the  good  old  German 
way. 

The  second-generation  brewers  are  frequently  men  of 
college  education  and  of  refinement  and  culture.  With  the 
German  tendency  to  scientific  utilities,  they  are  in  many 
instances  specialists  in  the  chemistry  of  their  business. 

The  objectionable  features  of  such  magazine  writings 
as  the  one  we  are  discussing  are  found  in  their  perverting 
effect  upon  the  public  mind.  It  is  easy  among  a wide-read- 
ing, non-reasoning  public  to  create  a mental  attitude  border- 
ing on  unreason.  This  was  shown  during  the  late  free- 
silver  craze,  when  any  penniless  tramp  who  would  mount 
a store  box  and  orate  in  favor  of  free  silver  could  hold  an 
audience,  while  a banker  of  repute  and  standing  would  be 
hissed  off  the  rostrum  as  an  aristocrat  and  a “goldbug”  if 
he  ventured  to  argue  against  the  free  silver  millenium  of  the 
Bryanite  spellbinders. 

Thus  it  has  come  to  pass  that  with  the  public  sentiment 


248 


PROHIBITION. 


created  by  such  magazine  teachings,  State  after  State  has 
passed  county  and  State-wide  prohibition  laws  without  their 
lawmakers  giving  any  adequate  hearing  to  representatives 
of  the  liquor  industries.  The  prohibition  fanatic,  without  a 
dollar  invested  in  anything,  and  with  nothing  to  lose  by 
agitation — in  many  instances  paid  for  agitating — was  the 
only  individual  listened  to  by  legislative  committees  passing 
upon  laws  framed  to  practically  confiscate  millions  of 
dollars  worth  of  brewery  and  distillery  property  which  had 
been  built  up  and  legitimatized  by  a century  of  legislation 
tending  to  promote  and  encourage  home  industry  in  brew- 
ing, wine-growing  and  distilling. 

We  are  always  told  that  there  are  moral  questions  in- 
volved in  this  prohibition  outbreak.  Temperance  is  a moral 
question — absolutely  so.  For  that  reason  it  cannot  be  a 
legislative  question.  Moral  questions  pertain  to  individual 
conscience  and  personal  restraint;  they  are  never  settled  by 
act  of  Legislature. 

The  amusing  feature  of  this  Anti-Saloon  League  situa- 
tion is  that  while  the  League  is  proclaimed  as  the  “federated 
churches  in  action,”  the  churches  which  are  supposed  to  be 
the  custodians  and  guardians  of  moral  ideas,  find  themselves 
unable  to  deal  with  the  situation  until  they  are  first  made 
over  into  what  the  Rev.  Purley  A.  Baker,  National  Super- 
intendent of  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  tells  us  is  a “skillfully 
organized  political  force.” 

There  is  a strange  clouding  of  moral  perception  manifest 
in  this  prohibition  movement.  Property  rights  are  ignored, 
emotionalism  supplants  reason,  force  is  evoked  lawfully  or 
unlawfully  to  accomplish  a purpose.  In  fact,  moral  ideas 
seem  to  be  completely  ignored  and  lost  sight  of  by  those 
leading  the  agitation.  With  them  the  end  justifies  any 
and  all  means  for  its  attainment. 

Many  of  the  questions  stirred  up  are  discussed  as  moral, 
when  in  facts  they  are  largely  commercial  and  economic. 


CITY  LIQUOR  PROBLEM. 


249 


The  character  of  retail  establishments  is  properly  a police 
subject;  the  number  is  purely  a commercial  matter.  When- 
ever there  are  too  many  saloons  in  any  locality,  the  numeri- 
cal excess  is  soon  remedied  by  competition. 

The  brewery  management  of  the  saloon  may  be,  and  no 
doubt  is,  absurdly  stupid,  but  it  is  not  one  that  can  be 
improved  or  amended  by  writers  who  go  to  the  hostile 
corner  saloon  keeper  to  gather  facts  and  who  serve  them 
up  to  the  public  through  Anti-Saloon  League  spectacles. 

I If  the  photographs  shown  in  connection  with  the  Mc- 
' Clure  article  portrayed  American  Methodists  at  lunch,  there 
j might  not  be  so  much  objection  to  them  even  if  they  drank 
« beer,  but  the  crime  of  the  noon-day  lunchers  shown  in  the 
pictures  consist  in  their  being  “foreigners.”  To  our  Meth- 
■ odist  Know-nothing  Anti-Saloon  League  friends,  nothing 
is  so  obnoxious  as  a “foreigner” — even  if  he  be  an  inoffen- 
I sive,  hardworking  day  laborer — unless  it  might  be  a brewer 
I or  a distiller! 

It  should  be  remembered  that  so  long  as  our  native 
[ Americans  prefer  to  live  by  their  wits  rather  than  by  the 
honest  toil  of  their  hands,  so  long  will  the  foreign-born 
laborer  remain  a necessity  and  a blessing  to  the  labor  mar- 
kets of  the  United  States. 

The  man  who  decries  foreign  labor  because  it  drinks 
beer  instead  of  cold  tea  or  ice  water  for  lunch,  knows  very 
' little  of  the  economic  conditions  about  which  he  ventures 
to  write. 

This  whole  Anti-Saloon  League  movement  is  in  reality 
a thinly  veiled  warfare  on  everything  foreign — an  outbreak 
of  envy  and  jealousy  directed  against  the  hard-fisted,  hard- 
working, money-saving,  child-rearing  foreigner  and  his  de- 
scendants, who  in  the  struggle  for  existence  are  gradually 
crowding  the  effete,  bloodless  ansemic,  self-righteous  rem- 
nant of  puritan  stock  which  is  physically  too  feeble  to  do 
anything  but  cavil  and  denounce. 


250 


PROHIBITION. 


The  cities  are,  thank  God ! reservoirs  of  European  la- 
borers. At  the  time  of  writing  these  lines  it  would  be  a 
blessing  to  the  farmers  of  the  northwestern  United  States 
and  Canada  if  a few  carloads  of  such  foreign  laborers  could 
be  spared  to  them  to  help  garner  the  crops  which  are 
wasting  in  the  fields  for  lack  of  harvest  hands. 

Nothing  shows  more  plainly  than  such  magazine  effu- 
sions the  virulence  of  the  anti-foreign  sentiment  entertained 
by  their  writers.  Hear  what  Mr.  Turner  has  to  say  about 
the  Jew : “Every  business  has  the  atmosphere  of  the  mental 
type  that  made  it.”  After  mentioning  various  instances,  he 
tells  us  that  all  of  them,  including  “the  acute  and  often 
unscrupulous  Jewish  type  of  mind  which  has  taken  charge 
of  the  wholesale  liquor  trade  of  this  country,  are  all  evident 
in  the  development  of  the  various  businesses  they  control.” 

This  is  not  a fair  statement.  The  Jew  in  the  distilling 
business  of  this  country  has  supplanted  the  old  Kentuck}’ 
and  Pennsylvania  distiller — the  “rule  of  thumb”  distiller — 
not  by  unscrupulousness,  but  by  the  same  untiring  industr)', 
intelligence  and  business  sagacity  and  adoption  of  modern 
processes  which  make  him  a success  in  all  walks  of  com- 
mercial and  financial  endeavor. 

In  like  manner  the  “German  artisan  millionaire — the 
immigrant  beer  boiler  of  fifty  years  ago — the  sudden  crea- 
ture of  new  continent” — rose  to  prominence  and  wealth  by 
the  grace  of  opportunity  and  his  rugged  ability  to  seize  it 
aud  turn  it  to  his  advantage.  Be  it  remembered  that  the 
brewer  of  fifty  years  ago  did  not  create  the  American  ap- 
petite for  stimulants.  He  found  the  appetite  ready-made, 
and  acting  on  Horace  Greeley’s  axiom  to  find  a demand  and 
supply  it  if  you  want  to  succeed,  he  proceeded  to  supply  the 
demand  he  found,  awkwardly  and  unprofitably  at  first,  but 
later  with  great  profit  for  a time,  until,  under  the  inevitable 
laws  of  trade,  overproduction  and  undue  competition  once 
more  made  his  road  a difficult  one. 


CITY  LIQUOR  PROBLEM. 


251 


It  is  not  easy  to  determine  for  what  purpose  the  McClure 
article  was  written,  although  its  inspiring  source  is  evident. 
Was  it  to  take  a fling  on  general  principles  at  the  for- 
eigner? Or  was  it  to  revile  the  brewer  and  proclaim  that 
the  concerted  efforts  now  being  made  all  over  the  country 
by  the  brewers  to  eliminate  disreputable  saloons  was  not 
an  honest  effort  at  reform,  but  only  a trade  necessity?  Or 
was  it  to  spread  broadcast  the  highly  moral  idea  that  the 
States,  in  suppressing  industries  of  over  a century’s  growth, 
were  not  for  a moment  to  consider  the  doctrine  of  compen- 
sation to  the  people  whose  breweries  and  distilleries,  desig- 
nated as  “liquor  factories,”  are  practically  confiscated?  Or 
was  it  for  the  purpose  of  informing  the  reading  public  that 
“commercially  the  interest  of  every  private  business  selling 
liquor  is  against  the  interests  of  the  general  public?” 

We  are  told  that  “every  normal  commercial  incentive 
drives  it  to  sell  the  greatest  possible  amount  of  its  wares,” 
etc.  No  industry  can  sell  any  more  of  its  wares  than  the 
public  wants  to  buy.  Mr.  Turner  perhaps  does  not  know 
that  the  high  license  inflicted  on  the  occupation  of  liquor 
selling  is  responsible  for  the  bulk  of  the  law-breaking  and 
viciousness  complained  of  in  the  retail  trade. 

If  all  magazine  contributors  were  compelled  to  pay  a 
levy  of  a thousand  or  twelve  hundred  dollars  or  more  per 
annum  before  being  permitted  to  write  a line  for  publica- 
tion, what  manner  of  stuff  would  they  not  be  willing  to 
write  in  order  to  earn  that  license  fee,  and  how  their 
pens  would  work  overtime  for  the  production  of  quantity 
of  copy  regardless  of  quality.  Of  all  the  vicious  nostrums 
invented  as  a cure  for  all  the  evils  of  retail  liquor  selling, 
the  high-license  prescription  has  been  the  most  potent  for 
evil  to  the  liquor  seller  and  to  the  public. 

The  distillers  and  wholesale  liquor  dealers  have  always 
advocated  a moderate  or  low  fee  and  a license  based  on  the 
character  of  the  applicant,  such  license  to  hold  during  good 


252 


PROHIBITION. 


behavior  of  the  licensee  and  to  be  forfeited  for  any  viola- 
tion of  law.  High  license  is  always  an  incentive  to  law- 
breaking. But,  like  the  banker  in  the  free  silver  craze,  the 
liquor  dealer  has  been  hooted  out  of  hearing,  and  the  cranks, 
male  and  female,  given  possession  of  the  halls  of  legislation. 

The  suggestion  is  made  that  one  saloon  to  each  one  thou- 
sand of  population  is  enough.  Why  not  to  each  900  or  each 
1,100  of  population?  We  are  not  told.  No  good  reason 
is  given. 

And  where  should  this  one  saloon  be  located  with  ref- 
erence to  the  one  thousand  of  population,  upon  which  its 
right  to  exist  is  based?  Should  it  be  placed  geograph- 
ically and  geometrically  in  the  center  of  such  one  thousand 
population  ? 

It  is  apparent  that  Ashland  Avenue,  behind  the  stock- 
yards  in  Chicago,  which  is  described  as  a “solid  street  of 
saloons,”  is  offensive.  But  is  there  not  some  reason  why 
these  saloons  are  there?  Several  thousand  men  work  in 
those  stockyards.  Each  one  of  those  saloons  sells  food  of 
some  kind  in  some  shape.  They  are  the  lunch-stands  and 
restaurants  of  these  many  thousand  workers,  who  want  beer 
as  well  as  coffee  and  milk  with  their  noonday  food. 

The  number  of  these  saloons  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  amount  of  beer  or  strong  liquor  sold  nor  with  the 
amount  of  coffee  or  milk  or  tobacco  disposed  of  by  them. 

They  are  a convenience  in  serving  their  customers  who 
patronize  them,  because  these  patrons  want  what  the  saloons 
offer  for  sale — beer,  milk,  coffee  and  rough  food.  A maga- 
zine writer  may  lunch  acceptably  on  chocolate  eclaires  and 
iced  tea,  but  if  he  had  been  knocking  steers  in  the  head 
all  morning  with  a twelve-pound  sledge  hammer,  or  been 
ripping  the  entrails  out  of  them,  or  disemboweling  sheep  by 
the  hundreds,  he  might  want  a glass  of  beer,  or  even  some- 
thing stronger,  with  his  hunk  of  rj'e  bread  and  boiled  meat 
when  the  whistle  announced  the  noon  hour.  This  “whole 


CITY  LIQUOR  PROBLEM. 


253 


street  of  saloons”  is  there  because  they  find  patronage  and 
supply  a demand. 

If  the  brewers  were  to  combine  and  make  one  saloon 
of  the  block  by  knocking  out  the  partition  walls  of  the 
buildings,  they  would  save  money.  They  would  be  obliged 
to  pay  but  one  license.  They  would  not  sell  any  more  beer, 
nor  any  less;  they  would  still  supply  the  same  demand. 
The  brewers  would  be  the  gainer,  the  city  of  Chicago  would 
be  the  loser. 

So  we  see  how  utterly  inadequate  are  some  of  the  re- 
formatory suggestions  of  magazine  writers,  who  use  but 
one  eye  in  looking  at  things  and  who  know  almost  nothing 
of  the  conditions  they  are  so  ready  to  criticise. 

With  many  thousands  of  men  working  in  one  locality, 
wanting  food  and  drink  within  one  fixed  hour  of  the  day, 
the  theory  of  one  saloon  to  each  one  thousand  of  population 
seems  not  to  be  worked  out  to  a conclusion  regarding  defi- 
nite location.  With  any  very  great  reduction  of  facilities 
for  the  noon  supply  of  food  and  drink  on  Ashland  Avenue, 
Chicago,  there  would  be  a daily  riot  of  hungry  and  thirsty 
workingmen.  But  little  matters  of  detail  of  this  nature 
never  ruffle  the  Anti-Saloon  League  theorist.  The  stream 
of  Anti-Saloon  League  wisdom  for  the  regulation  of  the 
universe  will  no  doubt  continue  to  percolate  from  its  Meth- 
odist-Knownothing  sources  until  sensible  people,  becoming 
weary  of  it,  will  gradually  turn  it  into  the  sewers  of  de- 
served oblivion. 


Xkeory  of  Prokitition 


A Masterly  Analysis. 

{Rev.  Sanford  H.  Cobb  in  the  Princeton  Reviezu.) 


The  discussion  of  this  theme  falls  naturally  into  two 
parts,  according  to  its  duplex  presentation ; first,  as  civil 
law,  either  existing  or  proposed ; and  second  as  a moral 
precept.  These  two  aspects  are  logically  quite  distinct,  and 
in  some  respects  are  antagonistic.  Yet  in  ordinary  dis- 
cussion, at  the  hands  of  both  friends  and  foes,  they  are 
constantly  confused.  One  rarely  hears  or  reads  an  argu- 
ment against  prohibition  which  keeps  clearly  in  view  the 
distinction  between  a civil  statute  and  a precept  of  morals. 
One  rarely  hears  or  reads  an  argument  in  its  favor  which 
does  not  confessedly  draw  its  strongest  plea  from  moral 
considerations.  Prohibition  comes  into  religious  assemblies 
and  church  courts,  demanding  that  it  receive  their  sanction 
and  furtherance,  as  a thing  of  almost  religious  obligation ; 
in  some  cases  even  seeking  ecclesiastical  indorsement  for 
a political  party  having  prohibition  as  its  watchward.  In 
some  quarters,  also,  it  is  broadly  charged  that  every  pulpit 
which  fails  to  champion  prohibition  is  derelict.  This  state 
of  things  shows  a most  lamentable  confusion  of  ideas,  re- 
sulting in  much  illogical  and  unchristian  argumentation. 

The  only  justifying  ground  for  a prohibitory  law,  if 
found  at  all,  must  be  found  in  the  principles,  not  of  morality, 


I 

! 


254 


THEORY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


255 


but  of  political  economy,  or,  to  use  a wider  phrase,  in  the 
requirements  of  public  policy.  The  scope  of  public  policy 
is  wide.  It  considers  what  is  necessary  or  desirable  for 
the  community  at  large ; what  best  subserves  the  interests 
of  the  State ; what  will  provide  for  its  revenues,  develop 
its  resources,  and  protect  it  from  various  dangers.  Here 
is  the  ground  of  power  to  tax  for  support  of  the  State 
and  for  public  improvements ; to  establish  common  schools ; 
to  levy  duties  on  imports ; to  declare  quarantine ; to  kill 
diseased  cattle;  to  regulate  the  sale  of  dangerous  articles, 
such  as  gunpowder  and  poisons.  Indeed,  public  policy, 
the  right  of  the  State,  may  go  so  far  in  its  demands  as  to 
“take  the  body”  of  the  citizen,  enlisting  him  for  war,  or 
even  drafting  him  by  force,  if  he  himself  is  unwilling  to 
fight  his  country’s  battles. 

Now,  it  is  solely  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  which 
such  power  implies,  and  for  reasons  of  external  public 
policy,  that  the  State  has  in  the  past  interfered,  or  can 
ever  be  asked  to  interfere,  with  the  liquor  traffic,  in  all 
degrees  of  such  interference,  from  the  lowest  form  of 
license  to  the  most  iron-clad  prohibition.  The  confessed 
object  of  all  such  legislation  is  the  lessening  or  the  entire 
suppression  of  the  evil  suffered  by  society  in  consequence 
of  that  traffic.  In  the  presence  of  such  law,  if  any  citizen 
claims  the  personal  right  to  sell  liquor  without  a license, 
or  if,  as  against  prohibition,  the  citizen  claims  the  personal 
right  to  drink  liquor  within  the  bounds  of  moderation,  and 
hence,  the  right  to  buy  or  make — both  of  which  claims 
found  themselves  on  the  personal  liberty  of  the  citizen — the 
State  replies,  in  effect:  “Whatever  your  right  may  be  in 
itself,  or  would  be  in  case  others  were  not  damaged  by 
its  exercise,  yet  you  and  your  right  do  not  stand  alone. 
All  rights  must  exist  together  in  harmony,  and  when  dis- 
cord arises  there  must  ensue  a mutual  limitation.  In  the 
application  of  this  principle,  the  public  good  requires  that 


256 


PROHIBITION. 


the  sale  of  liquor  shall  be  restricted  or  suppressed,  your 
individual  rights  to  the  contrary'  notwithstanding.”  So 
saying,  the  answer  of  the  State  is  complete,  and,  if  facts 
shall  warrant,  its  position  unassailable. 

Thus  far  it  is  clear  that  the  essential  question  is  solely 
one  of  public  good.  The  morality  of  the  question  is  acci- 
dental. Of  course,  modern  society  universally  recognizes, 
however  it  may  fail  at  times  in  applying  the  broad  prin- 
ciple, that  open  immorality  is  adverse  to  the  public  good. 
Society  is  also,  happily,  beginning  to  apprehend  that  the 
political  economy  of  the  future  must,  for  reasons  of  social 
prosperity,  permit  a large  admixture  of  moral  motives  in 
its  methods  and  precepts.  And  yet,  after  all,  the  liquor 
laws  have  not  been  nor  could  they  be  enacted  because  the 
use  or  abuse  of  liquor  is  immoral,  but  because  the  abuse 
of  it  is  injurious  to  society.  If  such  abuse  did  not  threaten 
the  public  peace  and  create  enormous  burdens  of  taxation 
for  the  support  of  the  courts,  prisons,  reformatories  and 
a.sylums ; if  it  were  not  the  fruitful  mother  of  crimes ; if 
the  immorality  of  this  abuse  were  unattended  by  any 
material,  physical  or  social  ill-consequences  to  the  jeopard- 
izing of  the  public  good,  there  would  be  no  ground  for 
interference  by  the  State. 

Its  laws  against  various  indecencies  and  moral  evils 
are  made  and  enforced,  not  for  the  reason  that  such  things 
are  wicked,  but  because  moral  corruption  entails  social 
damage.  To  sell  or  drink  whisky  might  be  as  wicked  as 
the  unpardonable  sin,  but  if  no  social  evil  arose  therefrom 
the  civil  law  would  issue  no  warrant  against  it.  It  is,  then, 
the  fact  that  social  damage  attends  the  abuse  of  liquor, 
that  crime  and  violence  are  multiplied  by  it,  which  furnishes 
the  State  with  its  justifying  reason  for  interference.  Such 
reason,  be  it  noted,  would  abide  and  demand  statutor}’’ 
action  in  the  presence  of  any  threatened  danger,  though 


THEORY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


257 


the  procuring  cause  or  instrument  of  such  danger  were 
destitute  of  all  moral  quality. 

What,  then,  the  prohibitonist  must  do,  in  order  to  sustain 
his  appeal  to  civil  legislation,  is  to  demonstrate  the  gravity 
and  extent  of  the  evils  inflicted  on  society  by  the  liquor 
traffic,  to  compute  the  burden  of  taxation  caused  by  it ; 
to  count  the  crimes;  to  show  the  misery  of  ruined  homes; 
the  loss  to  society  and  mankind  through  the  personal  deg- 
radation and  death  of  the  drunkard,  and  the  dangerous  al- 
lurements of  the  saloons,  by  which  thoughtless  youths  are 
snared  to  the  ruin  of  all  the  hopes  which  the  State  should 
entertain  for  the  service  of  each  citizen. 

He  must  demonstrate  the  prevalence  and  burden  of  this 
evil  in  such  preponderance  as  quite  to  outweigh  the  claims 
and  individual  rights  that  oppose  his  cause.  He  cannot 
deny,  if  he  keeps  within  the  region  of  facts,  that,  while  the 
absolute  number  of  those  who  abuse  liquor  to  the  result 
of  drunkenness  and  social  damage  is  absolutely  large,  yet 
relatively  it  is  much  smaller  than  the  number  of  those 
who  do  not  so  abuse  it,  who  never  are  drunken  and  damage 
society  save  in  the  imagination  of  that  argument  for  “con- 
structive” damage,  so  familiar  in  some  quarters,  which 
denounce  the  moderate  drinker  as  the  greatest  foe  to  tem- 
perance and  social  order.  Whatever  may  be  the  moral 
judgment  as  to  the  position  of  the  moderate  drinker,  it 
! will  not  do  for  the  prohibitionist,  seeking  civil  legislation, 
to  lose  sight  of  this  undeniable  disparity  of  numbers.  To 
;|  deny  it,  to  take  for  granted  that  this  larger  class  is  deprived 
I and  destitute  of  any  rights  which  the  reformer  should  re- 
I spect,  is  simply  to  offend  the  good  sense  of  the  community 
! at  large,  and  to  enact  in  injury  to  the  very  cause  he  seeks 
to  further. 

With  this  disparity  in  mind,  then  it  becomes  necessary 
jl  for  the  advocate  of  prohibition  to  show  that  the  evil  re- 
1 suiting  from  drunkenness  is  so  great  as  to  require  the 


258 


PROHIBITION. 


abolishment  of  all  drinking;  that,  because  a certain  propor- 
tion of  society  is  dangerously  vicious  in  its  abuse  of  liquor,  j 
the  only  remedy  is  to  be  found  in  forbidding  to  the  much  | 
larger  proportion  of  society  any  use  of  it  whatever.  And 
this,  if  he  desires  a salutary  and  permanent  statute,  he  ; 
must  show,  not  only  to  the  shifting  mind  of  politicians 
catching  at  public  favor  and  office,  not  only  to  a chance 
Legislature  which  some  political  combination  may  have  car- 
ried into  power,  but  to  the  good  sense  of  society  in  general ; 
a good  sense  and  general  opinion  absolutely  essential  to 
the  permanence  and  unity  of  any  statute,  however  any 
sudden  tide  of  passing  enthusiasm  may  have  procured  its 
enactment.  When  the  general  sense  of  society  is  agreed 
that  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number  requires  a 
prohibitory  law,  that  law  will  be  enacted  and  enforced  as 
naturally  and  promptly  as  are  the  laws  against  stealing  and 
smuggling.  Lentil  the  law  is  desired  and  sustained  by  such 
general  or  controlling  sentiment,  it  will  be  a positive  moral 
damage,  the  constant  cause  of  lies  and  evasions,  and  de- 
grading in  the  estimation  of  men  to  the  very  conception  of 
law,  which  should  ever  be  held  as  among  things  most 
sacred.  ; 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  present  article  to  make  or 
antagonize  such  argument,  but  solely  to  defend  the  limits 
within  which  the  appeal  for  legal  prohibition  must  be  con- 
fined. Whether  such  appeal  is  warranted  by  the  condition 
of  society  to-day  is  neither  affirmed  nor  denied  by  this  paper.  , 
The  purpose  in  hand  is  rather,  having  made  the  foregoing 
definitions,  to  draw  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  prohibi- 
tionist is  out  of  his  place,  and  beside  the  real  question  of 
legal  prohibition,  when  he  assumes  that  as  a civic  measure 
it  is  demanded  by  morality,  when  as  a moralist  he  pro- 
pounds such  prohibition  as  a remedy  for  the  moral  evil 
of  drunkenness ; when  as  a preacher,  he  lays  it  as  a religious 
obligation  to  conscience;  or  when,  as  a Christian,  he  enters 


THEORY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


259 


a church  court  and  demands  for  it  the  religious  authority 
of  ecclesiastical  commendation. 

This  introduces  the  second  aspect  of  prohibition,  which 
the  perhaps  more  frequent  argument  strives  to  make  the 
prominent  one,  but  the  utterances  of  which  the  movement 
takes  to  itself  pseudo-religious  and  moral  forms,  and  appeals 
to  the  religious  and  moral  consciousness  of  the  church 
and  Christians.  Dropping  its  only  valid  argument  of  .social 
expediency,  it  assumes  the  dignity  of  a moral  precept,  and 
declares  that  the  State  ought  to  prohibit  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  liquor  on  strictly  moral  grounds ; that  such 
making  and  selling  are  sinful ; that  the  license  system  is 
wicked  in  that  it  draws  a revenue  from  sin.  This  idea  of 
moral  urgency  is  spoken  or  implied  in  every  resort  to  synods 
and  conferences  on  the  part  of  prohibition,  and  to  the 
false  principle  involved  in  it  many  a religious  body  gives 
consent,  either  unwittingly  or  unwillingly,  for  the  fear  of 
being  misunderstood  or  misrepresented.  The  usual  form 
of  such  deliverances  reasons  from  the  sin  of  drunkenness 
and  the  drinking  habit  to  the  necessity  of  civil  statute 
to  prevent  it. 

Thus,  whatever  force  may  be  supposed  existent  in  an 
ecclesiastical  enactment  to  formulate  a spiritual  law  is 
sought  in  order  to  clothe  the  social  expedient  of  prohibition 
with  the  sanctities  of  moral  precept.  It  is  but  a borrowed 
plumage,  not  native  to  the  bird  which  wears  it.  A moral 
precept  is  an  instrument  for  the  education  and  strengthen- 
ing of  the  moral  man,  and  as  such  it  may,  without  hesitation, 
be  affirmed  that  prohibition  has  no  standing  in  the  the  court 
of  Christian  morality.  Preached  as  a moral  dogma,  binding 
on  the  conscience,  it  is  reprehensible  as  the  sin  which  it 
proposes  to  abolish.  This  ought  to  be  self-evident  to  every 
mind ; and  yet  because  the  mind  is  oppressed  by  the  enor- 
mous evils  of  intemperance,  and  at  the  same  time  drawn 
by  the  good  which  prohibition  promises,  the  vital  distinction 


26o 


PROHIBITION. 


here  noted  is  apt  to  be  lost.  The  truth  of  this  distinction 
and  its  importance  will  appear  from  the  following  consi- 
deration : 

I.  The  logical  support  of  prohibition  as  a moral  pre- 
cept necessarily  involves  the  assumption  of  one  of  two 
things — either  that  all  drinking  of  intoxicants  and  conse- 
quently the  sale  of  them  is  sinful,  or  that  an  invariable 
moral  law  of  total  abstinence,  to  be  enforced  on  all  by 
conscience  and  both  canon  and  civil  law  grow  out  of  their 
abuse  by  some.  Both  of  these  assumptions  are  false.  As 
to  the  former,  it  hardly  needs  to  be  argued  to  the  unbiased 
mind  that  both  reason  and  Scripture  place  the  marks  of 
sin  at  inebriety.  To  be  drunken  is  a sin.  To  drink  with 
the  certainty  or  probability  of  drunkenness  is  a sin.  To 
drink  within  the  limits  of  entire  self-control  is  indifferent. 
This  last  is  true  temperance,  with  which  firmly  observed, 
so  long  as  a man’s  influence  is  not  taken  into  account,  for 
the  man  himself  it  is  as  innocent  to  drink  as  to  eat  bread. 
To  sell  for  such  use  must  also  be  innocent.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  consider  here  the  attempt  made  to  turn  the  posi- 
tion of  Scriptural  temperance  by  the  modern  interpretation 
which  supposes  the  Bible  to  make  mention  of  two  wines. 
It  needs  but  to  set  aside  for  a curiosity  of  exegesis,  as 
grotesque  as  it  is  unsupported  by  the  vast  preponderance 
of  scholarship  and  research.  It  stands  true  that  the  Bible 
calls  drunkenness  a sin,  but  not  drinking.  Hence  there  is 
a false  premise  in  the  moral  plea  for  prohibition,  when  it 
says,  as  in  the  majority  of  its  utterances,  “Thou  shalt  not 
drink.”  This  even  the  moral  law  cannot  say.  It  is  still 
more  impossible  for  the  civil  law  to  say  it  for  moral  reasons. 
The  civil  law,  as  already  shown,  may  say  it  for  reasons  of 
social  expediency,  if  public  sentiment  shall  demand  it.  • 

This  brings  into  view  the  fundamental  distinction  made 
by  the  common  law,  and  recognized  in  the  Scriptures,  be- 
tween malum  per  se  and  malum  prohibition.  The  former 


THEORY  OF  PROHIBITION.  261 

is  wrong  because  of  its  intrinsic  nature,  and  nothing  can 
make  it  right.  The  latter  is  wrong  only  because  the  law 
forbids  it.  The  wrong  of  the  former  demands  that  a law 
be  made  to  punish  it.  The  wrong  of  the  latter  has  no 
existence  until  the  statute  is  made  and  the  crime  created 
by  the  law.  The  former  is  fundamental  in  morals.  The 
latter  is  expedient  for  the  State.  Both  the  Bible  and  the 
civil  law  say : “Thou  shalt  not  steal.”  It  is  a sin  to  steal 
under  any  circumstances,  and  to  any  amount,  however 
small.  It  would  be  a sin  if  the  law  said  nothing  about  it. 
The  law  says  “Thou  shalt  not  smuggle.”  Morality  and 
the  Bible  know  nothing  about  the  crime  of  smuggling  until 
the  civil  law  defines  and  creates  it.  Then  morality  and 
the  Bible  make  conscience  of  it  and  say,  “Thou  must  obey 
the  law.”  By  parity  of  reasoning,  the  matter  of  excess 
and  of  influence  aside,  there  needs  a prohibitory  statute 
to  make  all  use  of  intoxicants  a sin.  The  moral  argument 
of  the  prohibitionists  puts  the  cart  before  the  horse,  say- 
ing; “Prohibit,  because  it  is  wrong.”  In  reality  only  the 
statute  can  make  it  wrong.  No  moralist  is  ever  justified 
in  speaking  of  a statutory  evil  as  though  it  were  an  evil 
per  se,  least  of  all,  in  arguing  for  the  prohibition  of  the 
former  on  the  ground  of  the  latter’s  intrinsic  sinfulness. 

The  first  of  the  two  assumptions  is  then  manifestly 
false.  The  other  can  fare  no  better,  though  more  plausible 
in  its  statement.  Its  ordinary  form  of  statement  is  of 
the  nature  of  a conclusion;  that  the  evils  in  many  cases 
attendant  on  the  use  of  liquor  are  so  enormous  as  to  require 
prohibition,  and  therefore  it  is  the  positive  duty  of  every 
Christian  and  moralist  to  seek  such  a statute.  But  this 
is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  Christian  liberty  and  the  right 
of  private  judgment.  You  may  say,  in  sympathy  with 
Paul,  “I  will  drink  no  wine,  because  my  brother  stumbleth.” 
But  you  may  not  say  to  another  that  he  also  must  abstain. 
Whatever  the  civil  statute  may  compel,  you  cannot  make 


262 


PROHIBITION. 


your  estimate  of  moral  duty  a law  to  him.  He  is  your 
equal  in  intelligence,  general  conscientiousness  and  Chris- 
tian earnestness.  There  is  no  reason  why  his  opinion  in 
any  matter  should  not  be  as  good  as  yours.  From  the 
same  facts  he  forms  different  conclusions  from  your  own, 
and  equally  desires  the  right  and  true.  You  have  no  moral 
right  to  bind  his  conscience,  nor  to  argue  for  that  which 
will  bind  him  from  a moral  dictum  that  is  only  a matter 
of  opinion. 

However  the  individual  may  enact  for  himself  a pro- 
hibitory law  on  the  ground  of  his  own  moral  convictions 
and  Christian  experience,  yet  there  is  a gross  invasion  of 
Christian  liberty  when  it  is  asserted  that  this  is  an  invariable 
moral  law ; that  every  man  ought  to  be  bound  by  it,  or  that 
church  courts  ought  to  pronounce  it  the  voice  of  religion. 
Indeed,  the  whole  argument  for  prohibition  is  utterly 
hostile  to  the  free  spirit  of  the  gospel.  Now  this  objection, 
it  may  be  needful  to  remark,  is  not  directed  against  the 
social  expedience  of  prohibition.  Such  statute,  if  enacted, 
the  good  citizens  will  welcome,  or  submit  to,  as  an  experi- 
ment for  the  public  weal.  If  not  approved  it  may  at 
least  be  tolerated.  But  this  is  quite  other  than  the  imposi- 
tion of  it  as  a moral  precept,  or  the  preaching  of  it  in 
such  form.  As  such,  it  is  simply  monstrous. 

2.  As  further  emphasizing  the  points  already  made 
and  adding  to  them,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  real  principle 
involved  in  prohibition  is  directly  adverse  to  the  spirit,  the 
method  and  the  aim  of  Christian  morals.  Aside  from  the 
social  event,  the  thing  proposed  by  the  moral  attitude  of 
the  measure  is  to  reduce  vice  and  to  promote  virtue,  to 
rescue  and  reform  the  drunkard  and  to  deliver  others 
from  temptation.  It  may  be  safely  said  that  Christian 
morality,  while  earnestly  desirous  of  such  beneficent  ends, 
is  opposed  to  such  a method  of  reaching  them.  The  phi- 
losopher will  tell  you  that,  as  a matter  of  fact,  you  cannot 


THEORY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


263 


make  men  virtuous  by  compulsion.  To  this  the  Christian  mor- 
alists will  add  that  you  ought  not  to  try ; that  you  should  not, 
if  you  could.  The  ideal  of  Christian  manhood  is  in  spiritual 
and  moral  power;  in  inward  gracious  strength,  not  external 
safeguards ; in  the  self-control  of  manly  virtue,  not  in 
continuous  pupilage  to  superior  restrictive  negations ; in  the 
victory  that  overcometh  the  world,  not  the  safety  of  the 
coward  who  runs  away  from  the  battle.  The  strength  of 
moral  manhood  says : ‘T  will  not,  because  I ought  not.” 
It  is  not  a moral  child  who  says,  “I  will  not  because  I 
cannot.” 

This  latter  speech  it  is  that  the  moral  theory  of  prohi- 
bition seeks  to  put  into  men’s  mouths.  Instead  of  teach- 
ing them  to  be  men — self-poised,  self-controlled,  strong  in 
grace,  and  virtue  and  faith,  “growing  in  the  measure  of 
every  part”  of  the  moral  man,  “compacted  by  that  which 
every  joint  supplieth,”  it  would  keep  them  forever  “as 
children,’-  whom,  lest  they  “be  driven  about  by  every  wind 
of  [evil]  and  cunning  craftiness  whereby  [men]  lie  in  wait 
to  deceive,”  it  would  surround  with  an  iron  wall  of  exter- 
nal circumstance,  so  that  they  must  be  sober  whether  they 
will  or  not.  This,  indeed,  is  very  far  removed  from  the 
Scriptural  conception  of  Christian  manliness  and  virtue, 
which  is  “strong  in  the  Lord  and  in  the  power  of  His 
might,  able  to  withstand  all  the  fiery  darts  of  the  wicked 
one,  and,  having  done  all,  to  stand.”  Such  is  your  Chris- 
tian soldier,  who  “endures  hardness,”  and  does  not  plead 
for  extraneous  assistance.  According  to  the  moral  theory 
of  prohibition,  there  ought  to  have  been  a high  fence  around 
the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  so  that  Eve 
could  not  reach  it.  Consider  how  great  misery  such  a pro- 
hibitive statute  would  have  saved  the  race. 

The  point  of  objection,  then,  is  clear.  Prohibition  is 
not  to  be  urged  by  the  church  and  Christian  morality  as 
a remedy  for  moral  ills.  We  may  not  teach  society  that 


264 


PROHIBITION. 


prohibition  is  required  by  Christian  morals.  We  may  not 
teach  the  drunkard  that  his  salvation  from  the  curse  of 
rum  is  to  be  found  only  in  prohibition.  We  may  not  teach 
the  youth  their  best  safeguard  is  to  be  made  by  prohibition. 
We  may  not  teach  the  world  that  Christian  virtue  and 
manhood  require  any  civil  law  for  .either  their  creation 
or  their  preservation.  To  do  this  is  false  to  the  principles 
of  Christian  truth  and  is  treason  to  the  Lord.  But  in  the 
predicament  of  doing  just  this  very  thing,  this  theory  of 
prohibition  stands,  when  urged  as  a moral  precept  and 
enforced  with  the  sanctions  of  religion.  Verily,  not  on 
such  food  as  prohibition  brings  will  men  grow  to  the 
stature  of  moral  manhood.  Put  your  prohibitory  enact- 
ments on  the  statute  book,  make  them  operative  and  suc- 
cessful, and  then  the  world  will  have  taken  a step  back- 
ward in  true  moral  progress;  and  Christian  doctrine  and 
manhood,  so  far  forth  as  they  shall  depend  thereon,  will 
have  receded  from  their  divine  ideal. 

3.  For,  in  the  next  place,  as  a conclusion  that  is  irre- 
sistible and  a fact  beyond  denial,  it  follows  that  the  accept- 
ance by  the  church  of  this  moral  theory  of  prohibition, 
as  a necessary  means  of  meeting  and  subduing  moral  evil, 
is  a confession  of  failure  and  of  hopeless  weakness  on 
the  part  of  Christianity.  Such  failure  has  certainly  been 
charged  by  a number  of  advocates  for  temperance  and  pro- 
hibition, whose  assaults  upon  the  church  have  been  more 
bitter  and  virulent  than  upon  the  rum  power.  The  adoption 
by  the  church  of  this  modern  shibboleth  of  so-called  moral 
reform  virtually  confesses  that  this  false  charge  is  true. 
It  goes  to  the  root.  It  declares  that  Christian  methods  are 
too  weak;  that  the  gospel  is  unequal  to  saving  men  from 
the  sin  of  intemperance,  however  efficient  it  may  be  in 
coping  with  other  forms  of  sin ; that  spiritual  power  must 
be  supplemented  by  civil  law  in  order  to  redeem  the  world ; 
that  the  preacher  of  “righteousness,  temperance  and  judg- 


THEORY  OF  PROHIBITION.  265 

ment  to  come”  must  be  attended  by  the  constable,  to  give 
to  at  least  one  of  his  doctrines  the  desired  effect. 

There  is  no  evasion  of  this  conclusion.  It  is  so  plain 
as  to  be  self-evident.  Instead  of  relying  on  God’s  spirit, 
this  preacher  of  a moral  prohibition  puts  his  trust  in  fallible 
legislators.  Instead  of  using  spiritual  influence,  resorts  to 
the  tricks  and  treacheries  of  politicians.  Instead  of  holding 
up  the  pure  law  of  God,  he  seeks  to  submit  to  “ordinances ; 
touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not,  after  the  doctrines  and 
commandments  of  man,”  against  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  expressly  warned.  Instead  of  educating  to  the  stature 
of  perfect  manhood  in  Jesus  Christ,  he  would  bind  men 
in  soberness  by  a statute,  and  keep  them  children  for  life. 
But  the  method  and  result  are  alike  unchristian.  “The 
weapons  of  our  warfare  are  not  carnal,  but  mighty,  through 
God,  to  the  pulling  down  of  strongholds,  and  bringing  into 
captivity  every  thought  to  the  obedience  of  Christ.”  What 
the  church  needs  for  the  successful  doing  of  her  work 
in  saving  men  from  the  sin  of  intemperance,  as  from  all 
other  sins,  is  not  a prohibitory  statute,  but  a soul-filling 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

4.  Still  another  objection  to  the  theory  of  prohibition 
in  its  moral  aspect  is  that  it  is  the  unphilosophical  and 
unbelieving  language  of  impatience : “He  that  believeth 
shall  not  make  haste.”  The  world,  under  God’s  rule,  is 
working  out  its  salvation.  A steady  redemption  is  going 
on — slowly,  you  may  say,  if  you  please,  and  yet  steadily. 
“Now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than  when  we  believed?” 
Undoubtedly,  this  progress  might  have  been  more  rapid 
had  the  people  of  God  been  more  faithful.  And  yet  the 
entire  history  of  truth  and  the  analogies  of  faith  teach  that 
moral  reformation  is  both  inward  and  gradual,  and  most 
emphatically  that  it  can  not  be  hastened  by  external  statute. 
Now,  the  theory  of  prohibition  grows  impatient  of  this  law 
of  moral  progress.  Alarmed,  horrified  by  the  portentous 


266 


PROHIBITION. 


character  of  the  present  form  of  evil  which  it  seeks  to  com- 
bat, it  proposes  to  destroy  it  at  one  blow,  fondly  and 
foolishly  dreaming  that  such  a blow  is  possible. 

It  may  be  proper  enough  to  cut  a Gordian  knot  when 
the  knot  is  only  a tangled  mass  of  cords  or  thongs.  But 
when  it  is  made  of  thought  and  feeling  or  impacted  by 
immoral  passion,  there  is  no  sword  of  human  law  that,  to 
the  satisfaction  of  morals  or  of  religion,  is  equal  to  the 
cutting.  Such  instrument  may,  indeed,  if  circumstances 
shall  prove  propitious,  solve  a riddle  for  society  and  min- 
ister to  its  general  comfort  and  safety.  But  when  you  get 
to  the  real  moral  problem  which  in  this  question  forces  the 
church  and  the  moralist,  you  find  something  far  more  im- 
perative and  important  than  any  external  and  social  pros- 
perity— a demand  for  moral  reformation.  That  kilot  must 
be  untied  by  patient  toil  and  love  and  faith  and  pra)'er. 
Prohibition  is  no  answer  to  this  moral  problem,  albeit  the 
radical  error  made  by  prohibitionists  is  in  constantly  pre- 
senting it  as  an  snswer.  If  it  is  not  meant  as  a moral 
remedy,  it  has  no  more  propriety  in  the  pulpit  than  a dis- 
cussion of  the  tariff. 

A notable  illustration  of  the  point  in  hand  is  found  in 
the  fact  that  the  vast  majority  of  temperance  speeches  and 
sermons,  forgetful  that  Christian  temperance  is  self-con- 
trol, and  that  for  sobriety  the  moral  law  of  abstinence  is 
found  in  individual  liberty,  insists  on  the  necessity  of  an 
enforced  abstinence,  not  simply  as  a social  expedient,  but 
as  a moral  requirement.  IMoral  suasion  is  derided  and 
laid  aside;  moral  and  spiritual  forces  are  considered  of  no 
value.  What  is  demanded  is  a statute  and  a policeman’s 
club  to  convert  men  out  of  hand ! The  church  might  as 
well  petition  the  Legislature  to  abolish  sin. 

5.  Once  more,  the  valid  objection  lies  against  this  moral 
theory  of  prohibition  that  it  either  goes  too  far  or  does  not 
go  far  enough.  If  it  is  a true  moral  precept,  it  should  be 


THEORY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


267 


applied  to  the  statement  of  other  moral  evils  than  that  of 
intemperance.  Now,  why  should  he  apply  the  remedy  only 
to  the  evil  of  the  liquor  question?  The  sin  of  intemperance 
is  not  the  only  sin  growing  out  of  the  abuse  of  an  inno- 
cent thing,  in  which  multitudes  go  to  do  evil,  and  before 
which  the  Christian  moralist  sometimes  stands  appalled. 

There  is,  for  example,  the  sin  of  impurity,  the  so-called 
"social  evil.”  This  represents  a more  heinous  sin  than 
drunkenness,  because  it  degrades  the  mystery  and  poisons 
the  fountain  of  life;  and  a more  threatening  evil,  because 
the  danger  it  brings  is  not  violence,  but  moral  and  physical 
pollution.  Better  a drunken  nation  than  one  unchaste.  It 
represents  also,  it  is  greatly  to  be  feared,  a wider  spread  of 
evil.  Why  not  apply  the  moral  theory  of  prohibition  to 
this  evil  ? It  is  said : "There  are  laws  against  brothels  and 
adultery.”  That  is  true,  and  so  there  are  laws  against 
drunkenness,  so  that  to  this  extent  the  two  evils  stand  in 
equal  condemnation.  But  the  prohibitionist  demands  that, 
because  intoxicants  are  abused  by  some  men  to  drunken- 
ness, therefore  there  shall  be  no  intoxicants  at  all. 

To  be  consistent — if  this  theory  be  correct — he  should 
also  demand  that,  because  the  sexual  instinct  is  abused  by 
some  to  the  extreme  of  impurity,  therefore  all  union  of 
sexes  shall  be  forbidden.  This,  of  course,  is  absurd,  and 
is  almost  blasphemy  against  the  marriage  which  is  "a  holy 
ordinance  of  God  and  is  honored  among  all  men.”  And 
yet  the  analogy  is  .complete,  the  argument,  in  its  moral 
force,  irresistible.  The  absurdity  and  blasphemy  lie  with 
the  prohibitionist,  who  would  foist  a temporary  social  expe- 
dient into  the  seat  of  Christian  morals  and  make  it  a prin- 
ciple of  morality  binding  on  the  conscience.  For  he  would 
do  well  to  remember — as  all  sound  moralists  and  teachers 
must  remember,  if  their  doctrines  are  to  bear  scrutiny — 
that  morality  is  general.  Its  principles  are  broad  and  of 
equal  application  to  all  the  subjects  of  its  administration. 


268 


PROHIBITION. 


If,  for  the  sake  of  destroying  one  great  moral  evil,  we 
adopt  as  a moral  measure  the  abolition  of  its  innocent  in- 
strument, then  the  logic  of  truth  and  moral  consistency 
compel  us  to  apply  the  same  rule  of  judgment  and  the  same 
principle  of  prohibition  to  every  moral  evil  that  arises  from 
the  misuse  of  an  innocent  instrument.  From  this  dilemma 
the  prohibitionist  has  no  escape  save  in  the  assertion  that 
the  use  of  all  intoxicants  is  sinful,  an  assertion  which, 
though  made  by  some  temperance  advocates,  is  worthy  only 
of  the  contempt  deserved  by  any  wretched  makeshift. 

But  this  is  not  the  whole  of  it.  If  the  prohibitionist 
may  appeal  to  the  State  for  a prohibitory  enactment  against 
liquor  on  the  ground  of  morals,  if  his  argument  for  such 
action  is,  as  generally  we  find  it,  drawn  from  the  alleged 
sinfulness  of  the  use  or  abuse  of  liquor,  then  he  admits  a 
principle  which,  carried  to  its  logical  results,  is  destructive 
of  both  civil  and  religious  liberty.  If  it  is  right  in  this  case, 
it  is  right  in  any  case  to  call  upon  the  strong  arm  of  the 
civil  law  to  enforce  a special  view  of  morals  or  a particular 
tenet  of  religion.  For  such  reasons  it  is  objected  that  this 
moral  theory  of  prohibition  either  goes  too  far  or  does  not 
go  far  enough.  If  the  principle  is  true,  then  should  it  sweep 
the  fields  of  morals  and  religion.  If  the  principle  is  false, 
then  is  it  only  a delusion  and  a snare. 

The  sum  of  it,  then,  is  this,  that  as  a remedy  for  the 
moral  evil  of  intemperance,  prohibition  is  wanting  in  the 
first  principles  of  true  morality.  Its  advocacy  on  moral 
and  religious  grounds  is  pernicious  to  the  last  degree,  op- 
pressive to  the  conscience,  restrictive  of  true  liberty  of  mind 
and  dishonorable  to  the  Christian  idea  of  manhood,  and 
discreditable  to  a church  that  can  write  its  name  upon  her 
banners.  Prohibition  is,  or  must  be,  a civil  measure,  sus- 
tained by  civil  reasons,  and  looking  to  social  ends.  Notwith- 
standing its  involvement  in  and  suggestions  by  special  con- 
ditions which  display  immoral  aspects,  it  yet  stands  as  a 


THEORY  OF  PROHIBITION. 


269 


civil  measure  on  the  same  level  as  the  tariff  law,  and  is  as 
much  out  of  place  in  the  pulpit  and  church  courts  as  a 
discussion  of  the  fur  trade  would  be.  Such  exclusion,  of 
course,  does  not  bar  out  the  discussion  of  intemperance,  or 
of  all  moral  means  for  its  removal.  Intemperance  is  a sin 
loudly  demanding  the  animadversions  of  the  church,  and 
her  consecrated  efforts  for  its  reduction,  in  which  she  would 
have  been  more  successful  than  she  has,  but  for  those  di- 
visive counsels  which  have  thrust  so  many  obstacles  in  her 
path. 

All  this  can  be  said — nay,  has  been  said — with  the 
deepest  consciousness,  that  the  evil  which  prohibition  seeks 
to  suppress  is  enormous.  No  words  can  describe  its  base- 
ness, its  wretchedness,  its  tears  and  ruin.  Nor  is  it  to  be 
wondered  at  that  the  sometime  desperation  born  of  a view 
of  such  evil  should  dispose  one  to  catch  at  any  instrument 
which  holds  out  the  promise  of  relief,  or  that  every  possible 
argument  should  be  employed  to  further  its  beneficent  de- 
sign. We  will  not  always  criticise  too  closely  the  skiff 
which  carries  us  over  the  rushing  tide,  or  suspect  too  sharply 
the  oar  that  impels  it  onward.  So  earnest  and  zealous  are 
the  special  advocates  of  such  measures  that  even  when 
criticism  seems  demanded,  the  critic  hesitates  lest  ardor 
may  induce  a total  misunderstanding  and  misrepresentation. 
Let  it  then  be  fully  stated,  in  conclusion,  that  it  is  not 
here  contended  that  a prohibitory  statute,  as  a civil  measure, 
is  either  beyond  the  province  of,  or  impolitic  for,  the  State, 
or  that  for  civil  reasons  it  is  not  desirable. 

The  discussion  of  that  theme  demands  a different  train 
of  thought.  Whether  the  State  may,  or  should,  so  limit 
the  liberty  of  the  subject,  can  but  little  affect  the  present 
contention,  which,  with  all  possible  earnestness,  denies  the 
competence  of  either  State  or  Church  to  formulate  prohibi- 
tion as  a moral  law.  Be  its  outward  benefits  great  or  small, 
it  is  not  to  be  forced  upon  the  conscience,  however  it  may 


270 


PROHIBITION. 


gird  about  the  external  actions  of  the  citizen.  Its  adoption 
by  the  Christian  or  the  Church,  as  demanded  by  true  mor- 
ality, involves  a fundamental  error.  The  moralist  and  Chris- 
tion  must  be  careful  as  to  his  moral  arguments  and  his  ad- 
mission in  regard  to  the  relations  of  the  moral  to  the  out- 
ward life,  lest,  happily,  while  obtaining  for  a season  a 
certain  definite  good,  he  may  sacrifice  that  which  is  more 
precious  and  enduring ; lest  he  may  forge  a weapon  which, 
in  other  hands,  shall  shatter  his  dearest  treasure. 


{Compiled  from  the  U.  S.  Census  Reports.) 


“Prohibit  the  liquor  traffic  and  crime  will  cease”  is  the 
war  cry  of  prohibition.  The  question  thus  becomes  per- 
tinent : Has  the  number  of  convictions  for  crime  decreased 
in  States  which  have  been  under  prohibition? 

Maine,  New  Hampshire  and  Vermont  were  under  pro- 
hibitory laws  longer  than  any  other  States,  and  continu- 
ously, and  in  them  may  be  expected  the  fullest  fruition  of 
that  policy.  Referring  to  the  United  States  Census  Re- 
ports the  number  of  convicts  in  each  of  these  States  at 
each  census  from  1850  to  1890  is  found  to  be  as  follows: 


1850  i860  1870  1880  1890 


Under  license.  Under  prohibition. 


100  225  261  405  512 

33  193  267  269  321 

105  139  193  258  200 


Maine  

New  Hampshire 
Vermont  


Up  to  1850  there  had  been  no  prohibition  in  any  of 
these  States.  In  that  year  there  were  in  the  penitentiaries 
of  Maine  100  convicts,  or  171  convicts  to  every  million  of 
population.  Between  1850  and  i860  prohibition  became 
the  law  of  the  State,  and  in  the  latter  year  the  number  of 
criminals  had  increased  to  225,  or  358  to  every  million  of 
population.  The  number  of  criminals  further  increased  in 


271 


272 


PROHIBITION. 


1870  to  261,  in  1880  to  405,  and  in  1904  to  496,  or  to  700 
convicts  for  every  million  of  population. 

There  were,  therefore,  in  Maine  in  1904,  after  fifty 
years  of  prohibition,  more  than  four  times  as  many  crim- 
inals for  every  million  of  population  as  there  were  in  the 
same  State  before  it  had  prohibition.  The  Portland  (Me.) 
Herald  says : “Crime  is  alarmingly  prevalent.  Murders 
have  continually  increased  year  by  year.  Our  jails  and 
prisons  are  unpleasantly  full.  Robberies  and  burglaries  are 
occurring  in  all  directions.  Crime  of  all  kinds  is  increas- 
ing.” 

In  1850  New  Hampshire,  under  license,  had  in  her 
penal  institutions  33  convicts,  or  104  to  every  million  of 
population.  This  State  also  adopted  prohibition  shortly 
after  1850,  and  the  number  of  convicts  increased  steadily 
to  193  in  i860,  267  in  1870,  273  in  1880  and  321  in  1890, 
the  number  of  convicts  per  million  of  population  in  the 
latter  year  being  853. 

There  were,  therefore,  in  New  Hampshire,  after  forty 
years  of  prohibition,  eight  times  as  many  criminals,  per 
million  of  population,  as  there  were  under  license. 

Vermont  was  under  license  in  1850.  She  had  in  that 
year  105  convicts,  or  334  for  every  million  of  population. 
She  adopted  prohibition  between  1850  and  i860.  In  the 
latter  year  the  number  of  her  criminals  had  grown  to  189, 
and  this  number  increased  to  193  in  1870,  to  258  in  1880. 
and  200  in  1890,  or  to  602  for  every  million  of  population. 

In  Vermont,  therefore,  the  number  of  criminals  per  mil- 
lion of  population,  after  forty  years  of  prohibition  u’as 
double  the  number  under  license. 

The  steady  increase  in  crime  from  decade  to  decade 
under  prohibition,  as  shown  by  these  figures  is  most  re- 
markable. 

Iowa  and  Kansas  adopted  prohibition  after  the  census 
of  1880  was  taken.  The  census  reports  for  1890,  page 


PROHIBITION  AND  CRIME. 


273 


127,  shows  the  number  of  convicts  in  those  States  under 
license  and  prohibition  was  as  follows : 


1880. 

1890. 

1904. 

Under 

Under 

license. 

prohibition. 

Iowa  

803 

1,016 

1,255 

Kansas  

1.295 

1,928 

2,876 

Number  of  convicts  per  million  of  population : 

1880. 

1890. 

1904. 

Iowa  

494 

531 

531 

Kansas  

1,300 

1,351 

1,933 

Crime  has  increased^  therefore,  over  48  per  cent,  in 
Kansas  in  the  two  decades  during  which  the  State  has  been 
under  prohibition. 

After  a thorough  trial  Iowa  partially  abandoned  prohi- 
bition. While  the  law  was  in  force  crime  increased,  as 
shown  by  the  table.  Since  the  State  partially  abandoned 
prohibition  there  has  been  no  increase  in  crime. 


Alcokol  from  a Scientific 
V lewpomt 


The  following  from  the  science  department  of  “Amer- 
ica,” a publication  of  the  highest  character,  is  worthy  of 
careful  reading. 

Where  a paper  of  this  able  character  discusses  alcohol 
from  a scientific  standpoint,  it  is  refreshing  to  note  how 
free  the  treatment  of  the  question  is  from  the  prejudice 
and  intolerance  shown  by  so  many  magazines  in  discussing 
any  and  all  questions  pertaining  to  spirituous  liquor  in  any 
form.  The  comments  on  the  teaching  of  physiology  in  the 
public  schools  are  timely.  The  text  books  used  in  the 
public  schools  of  many  States  are  unworthy  a place  in  the 
school  curriculum  of  any  Commonwealth : 

“Perhaps  nothing  is  more  interesting  than  the  change 
that  has  come  over  medical  opinion,  in  the  last  few  years,  as 
regards  the  tissue  degenerations  caused  by  over-indulgence 
in  alcohol.  It  used  to  be  considered  definitely  settled  that 
arterial  changes  of  many  kinds  were  a common  consequence 
of  alcoholism.  After  arterial  change  nephritis  was  sup- 
posed to  be  the  next  common  result,  and  following  this 
came  cirrhosis  of  the  liver,  the  hardening  and  shrinking  of 
this  organ.  Now  everj^  one  of  these  supposed  character- 
istic changes  due  to  alcohol  is  in  doubt.  Probably  none  of 
them  is  due  to  alcohol  alone.  They  do  not  occur  in  the 
worst  cases  of  alcoholism  and  they  do  occasionally  occur 
in  people  who  have  not  indulged  in  alcohol  to  any  extent. 

274 


SCIENTIFIC  VIEWPOINT. 


275 


and  sometimes  in  those  who  have  been  abstainers  from 
spirituous  liquors  of  any  kind.  This  is  true  for  all  forms  of 
alcoholic  drinks.  The  mild  beers  and  wines  and  the  strong 
liquors  apparently  have  about  the  same  results,  and  these 
are  not  the  organic  changes  that  we  have  just  mentioned.  It 
seems  important  to  call  attention  to  this  because,  as  sup- 
posed knowledge  has  spread  in  recent  years,  the  mention 
of  certain  affections,  especially  nephritis  and  cirrhosis  of 
the  liver,  have  almost  come  to  carry  with  them  the  impli- 
cation of  alcoholic  indulgence. 

“The  autopsy  records  of  poorhouses  and  general  hos- 
pitals in  Massachusetts,  in  which  a great  many  inebriates, 
men  and  women  who  have  indulged  in  alcohol  to  excess 
for  many  years,  were  carefully  analyzed  in  a paper  read  by 
Dr.  Cabot,  of  Boston,  before  the  American  Medical  Asso- 
ciation at  its  Atlantic  City  meeting  five  years  ago.  The 
conclusions  were  a surprise  to  all  present,  for  they  contra- 
dicted most  of  what  physicians  thought  they  knew  with 
regard  to  the  tissue  changes  produced  by  alcohol.  Prof. 
Osier  commented  on  this  and  suggested  that  our  supposed 
knowledge  was  evidently  much  less  well  founded  than  we 
thought  and  that  much  more  remained  to  be  done.  A 
recent  .German  contribution  to  this  subject,  then,  is  most 
interesting.  Prof.  Fahr  reported  the  autopsy  findings  of 
over  300  cases  of  men  who  had  been  inebriates  for  many 
years  and  who  had  died  usually  as  a consequence  of  alco- 
holic indulgence.  It  is  easy  to  understand  that  in  the  Harbor 
Hospital  of  a large  seaport  like  Hamburg  a great  number 
of  victims  of  chronic  alcoholism  would  be  among  the  pa- 
tients. In  nearly  all  of  the  cases,  as  is  true  generally  of 
sailors,  the  alcohol  had  been  taken  in  the  form  of  spirits 
and  not  as  beer  or  wine. 

“Th^  result  of  these  autopsies  was  reported  editorially 
in  The  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association,  No- 
vember 27,  1909.  They  are  not  in  harmony  with  the  idea 


276 


PROHIBITION. 


that  alcohol  is  a poison  which  produces  widespread  and 
gross  anatomic  changes  throughout  the  body,  or  that  it  is 
a common  cause  of  either  arterio-sclerosis — that  is,  arterial 
degeneration,  or  nephritis.  With  regard  to  cirrhosis  of  the 
liver,  less  than  five  per  cent,  of  drunkards  suffer  from  it, 
while  the  autopsy  records  of  patients  without  any  alcoholic 
history  in  Hamburg  itself  show  that  it  may  occur  quite 
apart  from  alcohol.  Evidently  some  contributing  cause  is 
needed  for  its  production,  and  this  may  act  without  alcohol, 
though  alcohol  predisposes  to  its  action. 

“What  was  found,  however,  and  is  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance, were  changes  in  the  nervous  system  which  pre- 
disposed to  the  sudden  deaths  so  common  in  alcoholism,  and 
to  that  lack  of  resistance  to  all  other  diseases  which  char- 
acterizes the  alcoholic  subject.  Fahr  suspects  that  changes 
in  the  ganglion  cells  of  the  heart  may  be  responsible  for 
the  sudden  heart  failure  so  common  in  this  class  of  patients. 
Protracted  feeding  on  alcohol  fails  to  cause,  in  guinea  pigs 
and  rabbits,  any  of  the  changes  that  used  to  be  considered 
so  common  in  men,  and  even  does  not  produce  the  fatty 
degeneration  in  heart  and  liver  which  is  very-  common,  but 
does  produce  a marked  tendency  to  sudden  and  unexpected 
death.  It  seems  important  that  knowledge  of  this  kind 
should  be  widely  diffused,  because  it  adds  another  motive 
to  the  cause  of  temperance.  At  the  same  time  it  is  very' 
interesting  to  realize  that  most  of  the  teaching  of  physiology 
in  the  public  schools  concerning  what  were  the  accepted 
conclusions  as  to  the  effect  of  alcohol  upon  the  tissues  is 
quite  wrong  and  must  now  be  corrected.  It  is  this  ten- 
dency to  teach  mere  scientific  opinions  as  absolute  facts  that 
has  been  deprecated  by  many  scientists  who  have  dwelt 
especially  on  the  necessity  for  care  in  this  matter  as  regards 
the  young,  since  they''  will  later  have  to  be  asked  to  correct 
previous  false  notions,  to  the  serious  detriment  of  what  they 
think  of  science.” 


Unusual  and  Tyrannical  Metkods 
Ineffective 


The  people  of  Vermont  adopted  prohibition  in  1852,  and 
many  of  them  rested  confident  for  a period  in  the  belief 
that  in  it  a remedy  had  been  found  for  the  evils  of  intem- 
perance more  swift  and  sweeping  than  the  tedious  and  slow 
processes  of  moral  suasion. 

It  soon  became  evident  that  under  the  prohibitory  law, 
intemperance  was  not  decreasing,  and  the  law  was  not  being 
enforced,  and  that  the  machinery  for  the  enforcement  of 
ordinary  laws  supported  by  public  sentiment  was  wholly 
inadequate  to  insure  the  enforcement  of  prohibition.  A 
resolution  was  passed  by  the  lower  branch  of  the  Legislature 
in  1853,  appointing  a special  committee  to  consider  the 
matter.  This  committee  reported  that  prohibition  had  pro- 
duced many  evils,  had  trespassed  on  the  liberties  of  the 
citizens  unjustifiably;  and  had  increased  the  drinking  habit 
instead  of  diminishing  it,  and  recommended  that  the  law 
be  repealed.  This  recommendation,  after  prolonged  debate, 
was  voted  down,  by  a vote  of  91  to  90,  and  prohibition 
continued  the  policy  of  the  State. 

Unusual  Measures  Adopted. 

The  friends  of  the  law,  realizing  that  prohibition,  in 
regard  to  which  sentiment  was  divided,  could  not  be  en- 
forced as  ordinary  laws  are  enforced,  now  sought  from  the 
State  Legislature  unusual  and  severer  means  of  enforcing 

277 


278 


PROHIBITION. 


the  law.  These,  in  turn,  proving  futile,  more  and  more 
drastic  laws  were  demanded  at  each  succeeding  session  of 
the  Legislature.  Ingenuity  was  taxed  to  devise  means  for 
enforcement  of  the  law.  Succeeding  legislatures  for  fifty 
years  granted  freely  whatever  the  prohibitionists  asked,  and 
the  statutes  relating  to  the  enforcement  of  prohibition 
eventually  became  approximately  as  voluminous  as  those 
applying  to  all  other  crimes  and  misdeameanors  whatsoever. 

Search  Without  Warrant. 

In  the  struggle  to  make  the  law  more  effective,  essential 
principles  of  American  government  were  ignored.  It  was 
decreed  that  the  home,  baggage,  and  even  the  person  of 
any  citizen,  sojourner  or  traveler  in  the  State  could  be 
searched  for  liquors  without  warrant,  and  on  mere  sus- 
picion. In  such  search  any  liquor  found  either  on  the 
person  or  elsewhere,  no  matter  for  what  purpose  intended, 
was  confiscated,  and  the  person  in  whose  possession  it  was 
found  arrested  and  held  guilty  of  violating  the  prohibitory 
law,  unless  he  could  prove  the  right  to  have  the  liquor  in 
his  possession.  Under  this  law,  no  visitor  to  the  State 
could  carry  his  own  liquors  for  strictly  personal  use.  Any- 
one so  inclined  could  stop  any  person  on  the  highway,  search 
his  person  and  baggage  without  warrant,  and  seize  any 
liquors  which  might  be  found  in  his  possession.  The  law, 
instead  of  following  the  ordinary  rule  which  considers  even,’- 
man  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty,  held  those,  in  whose 
possession  liquor  was  found,  to  be  guilty  until  they  proved 
themselves  innocent. 

Severe  Punishments  Decreed. 

More  and  more  severe  punishment  for  the  violation 
of  the  law  were  demanded  until  those  fixed  therefor  grew 
to  be  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  character  of  the  offense. 
The  penalties  in  many  cases  meted  out  for  violation  of  the 


INEFFECTIVE  METHODS. 


279 


prohibitory  law  were  greater  than  that  inflicted  for  any 
crime,  other  than  murder,  in  the  State.  In  the  celebrated 
O’Neal  case,  in  1882,  imprisonment  for  nearly  100  years 
was  inflicted  for  selling  liquors.  In  many  cases,  men  were 
sent  to  prison  for  violating  this  law  for  longer  periods  than 
they  could  live. 

Right  of  Trial  by  Jury  Denied. 

The  prohibitory  law  declared  any  place,  where  liquor 
was  kept  or  sold  to  be  a nuisance,  and  then  invoked  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  chancery  courts  to  enjoin  such  nuisance, 
and  thus  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  was  denied,  and  the 
constitutional  right  nullified. 

The  Accused  Must  Testify  Against  Himself — The 
Court  a Prosecuting  Officer. 

Under  what  was  called  “The  Disclosure”  the  funda- 
mental principle  that  no  man  shall  be  bound  to  give  evidence 
against  himself  was  violated. 

The  statute  imposed  on  the  judge  the  duty  of  drawing 
out  by  “inquisition  proceedings”  the  testimony  upon  which 
a prosecution  might  be  founded,  and  on  which  a man 
might  be  brought  before  the  same  judge  for  trial  who  was 
thus  constituted  detective,  prosecutor  and  judge  in  the  same 
action.  Under  the  “disclosure”  proceedings  every  man  ar- 
rested for  intoxication  must  disclose  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  judge  the  place  where  and  the  person  of  whom  he 
secured  liquor,  and  if  he  did  not  so  disclose  he  could  be 
committed  to  jail.  Under  this  provision,  persons  have  been 
kept  in  jail  for  months  because  they  failed  to  make  a satis- 
factory disclosure.  Before  a person  so  committed  could 
obtain  his  discharge,  he  must,  under  oath,  testify  to  differ- 
ent facts  than  those  to  which  he  testified  before  his  com- 
mitment, and  the  question  naturally  arises  as  to  which  time 
he  told  the  truth.  The  law  thus  invited  perjury. 


28o 


PROHIBITION. 


These  proceedings  put  a weapon  in  the  hands  of  the 
malicious  for  satisfying  personal  grudges.  Any  man  found 
drunk,  or  simulating  drunkenness,  could  declare  that  he 
obtained  his  drink  from  anyone  with  whom  he  might  be 
at  enmity,  and  his  word  was  by  law  a proof  superior  to  any 
denials  or  testimony  by  friends  that  the  accused  might  offer. 
No  citizen,  private  or  otherwise,  was  wholly  safe  from  a 
charge  of  this  kind,  and  the  penalty  was  very  severe.  Un- 
der this  statute  a liquor  seller  dare  not  refuse  to  sell  or 
give  liquors  to  a drunkard  or  a minor  because  of  the  fear 
that  such  drunkard  or  minor  might  make  a “disclosure”  out 
of  revenge,  and  subject  him  to  prosecution. 

Injunction. 

Perhaps  the  most  obnoxious  provision  of  the  prohibitory 
law  was  the  so-called  “injunction  proceeding.”  This  was 
briefly  as  follows : 

Some  person,  responsible  or  irresponsible,  might  make 
a statement  to  a prosecuting  officer  that  he  thought  liquor 
was  kept  in  a certain  place.  The  prosecuting  officer  must 
then  go  to  the  judge,  without  notifying  the  parties  inter- 
ested, and  obtain  a temporary  injunction  against  the  prop- 
erty to  the  effect  that  liquor  should  not  be  kept  there,  and 
make  the  owners,  occupants,  and  all  persons  who  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  the  possession  of  the  property,  parties. 
All  this  was  without  hearing  or  notice  of  any  kind.  If 
the  judge  or  prosecuting  officer  thought,  or  pretended  to 
think,  after  the  issue  of  this  injunction  that  liquor  was  still 
kept  in  such  place,  the  parties  enjoined  could  be  brought 
before  the  judge,  and  fined  or  imprisoned,  or  both,  at  his 
discretion,  without  a hearing  before  a jury.  Such  injunc- 
tion was  permanent,  and  ran  against  the  defendant,  and 
all  other  persons  interested  in  the  building  or  premises, 
their  servants,  agents,  lessees  and  assigns.  It  was  in  the 
nature  of  an  incumbrance  upon  the  premises,  and  subse- 


INEFFECTIVE  METHODS. 


281 

quent  purchasers  were  bound  to  know  and  obey  it.  Under 
this  law,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  held  that  a person 
who  did  not  live  in  Vermont,  provided  he  was  the  owner 
of  real  estate  there,  might  be  found  guilty  of  maintaining 
a nuisance,  and  guilty  of  contempt  of  court,  if  his  agent 
or  lessee,  although  without  his  knowledge,  and  contrary 
to  his  express  directions,  suffered  intoxicating  liquors  to 
be  disposed  of  on  his  premises.  Under  this  law,  as  some- 
times happened,  an  innocent  purchaser  of  an  enjoined  prop- 
erty, who  was  entirely  ignorant  of  the  injunction,  might  be 
convicted  and  subjected  to  a heavy  penalty  for  the  mere 
giving  of  a small  quantity  of  wine  to  a sick  friend. 

Three  Convictions  for  One  Offense. 

The  law  allowed  three  convictions  for  one  offense — one 
for  selling  liquor,  one  for  keeping  the  same  liquor  with 
intent  to  sell,  and  one  for  maintaining  a nuisance  by  hav- 
ing the  same  liquor  on  hand  to  sell. 

Conviction  Rewarded  by  Fees  and  Share  of  the  Fines. 

To  stimulate  prosecutions  under  the  law,  the  courts 
and  prosecuting  officers  were  given  a share  of  the  fines, 
and  their  fees  were  made  contingent  on  securing  conviction. 
These  provisions  opened  an  immense  field  to  corruption, 
and  the  records  of  the  courts  show  that  the  opportunity  so 
presented  was  not  often  neglected.  So  expert  did  the 
court  officers  become  that  the  fines  were  fixed  at  the  maxi- 
mum which  the  defendant  could  stand  without  driving  him 
out  of  business.  Care  was  taken  not  to  do  that.  They 
were  too  shrewd  to  kill  the  goose  that  laid  the  golden 
egg.  When,  after  resumiing  his  business,  the  illicit  seller 
had  carried  it  on  long  enough  to  stand  another  fine,  he 
was  re-arrested  and  mulcted  again,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
officers.  To  illustrate  by  an  instance.  A liquor  dealer 
at  Middlebury,  who  had  been  convicted,  was  told  by  the 
justice  that  he  should  fine  him  $200.  The  man  said  that 


282 


PROHIBITION. 


this  would  force  him  to  shut  up  business.  The  prosecuting 
officer  took  him  to  one  side,  and,  after  a consultation  be- 
tween them,  the  fine  was  fixed  at  $50,  so  he  could  go  back 
to  selling  again.  This  was  common  practice.  In  this  and 
other  ways  the  law  was  so  manipulated  as  to  fill  the  pockets 
of  the  officers  at  the  expense  of  the  State,  and  a perfect 
machinery  for  official  blackmail  was  provided. 


Bible  Wines 

BY  ALVAH  HOVEY. 


We  must  close  our  examination  of  the  Bible  with  re- 
gard to  the  claim  that  yayin  and  oinos  are  generic  words, 
applied  by  the  sacred  writers  with  equal  propriety  and 
almost  equal  frequency  to  two  kinds  of  grape  juice,  one 
unfermented  and  wholesome,  and  the  other  fermented  and 
injurious.  That  claim  we  must  reject  as  unsupported  by 
any  solid  evidence.  It  is  not  for  us  to  dictate  to  the  in- 
spired prophets  and  poets  what  they  should  say  on  the 
matter  of  wine  drinking.  If  they  solemnly  and  continually 
protest  against  drunkenness,  and  it  is  found  that  such  wine 
as  men  now  drink  is  always  injurious  to  health  and  de- 
structive of  self-control,  so  that  drunkenness  is  apt  to  result 
from  the  most  cautious  use  of  it,  then  entire  abstinence 
is  a duty  If  they  teach  us  to  have  regard  to  the  welfare 
of  our  fellows  and  to  deny  ourselves  a luxury  or  pleasure 
for  their  benefit,  we  must  abstain  from  wine  as  a beverage 
in  case  our  use  of  it  would  lead  them  into  peril.  If  they 
teach  us  to  have  a tender  regard  for  the  consciences  of 
our  brethren  who  may  believe  that  total  abstinence  is  a 
duty,  but  might  be  tempted  by  our  example  to  drink,  we 
should  perhaps  refrain  for  their  sakes.  If  they  require 
us  to  love  our  neighbor  as  ourself,  and  we  are  convinced 
that  wine  drinking  is  and  must  be  a great  evil  in  modern 

283 


284 


PROHIBITION. 


society,  we  surely  ought  to  abstain  from  the  practice.  If 
they  leave  us  free  to  drink  no  Avine,  unless  it  be  at  the 
holy  supper  and  in  remembrance  of  the  Lord’s  death,  we 
need  not  hesitate  to  follow  the  narrow  way  of  total  ab- 
stinence for  the  good  of  all ; but  when  the  morbid  consci- 
ences of  good  men  summon  us  to  impeach  the  Lord’s  wis- 
dom or  to  tamper  with  evidence  for  the  sake  of  saying 
that  “the  fruit  of  the  vine”  used  by  Him  was  unfermented 
grape  juice,  it  is  time  to  pause  and  consider  whether  our 
own  consciences  have  not  some  right  to  be  heard.  When 
ardent  men  profanely  say  that  if  Jesus  used  wine  having 
alcohol  in  it  he  was  unworthy  of  a place  in  one  of  our 
churches  it  is  time  to  protest  against  the  shortsighted  omni- 
science of  modern  reformers. 

The  subject  of  this  paper  does  not  embrace  an  exami- 
nation of  extra-biblical  evidence  bearing  upon  the  question 
discussed,  but  the  writer  may  be  allowed  to  say  that  in 
a pretty  thorough  study  of  Philo,  Justin  Martyr  and  pseudo 
Justin  Irenasus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertulliaii,  Origen, 
Jerome,  Augustine,  Chrysostom  and  Thomas  Aquinas,  in 
so  far  as  they  speak  of  wine,  he  has  discovered  no  traces 
of  the  use  of  oiniis  or  viniini  alone  to  denote  unfermented 
grape  juice,  but  abundant  evidence  that  they  all  considered 
wine  a liquor  that  would  intoxicate  when  drunk  freely 
enough,  and  that  would  exhilarate  when  drunk  moderately. 
He  has  also  found  abundant  evidence  that  many  of  the 
Christian  Fathers  were  strenuous  advocates  of  a most 
sparing  use  of  wine,  the  young  being  urged  to  abstain 
wholly  from  it  as  a beverage,  and  especially  young  women, 
and  the  old  to  resort  to  it  with  the  utmost  caution ; and 
he  has  found  all  these  Fathers  who  treat  the  matter  at 
all  insisting  upon  the  use  of  nine  mingled  ivith  zvater  at 
the  Lord’s  table,  but  in  no  case  suggesting  that  unfermented 
grape  juice,  or  juice  freshly  pressed  from  grapes,  would 
be  suitable. 


Tke  Cliurcli  and  Politics 


BY  EDWARD  ALLAN. 


This  is  an  era  of  reform — or  rather  of  reforms— largely 
of  reforms  that  do  not  reform. 

Most  prominent  in  the  clamor  for  righteousness — that 
is  the  plausible  if  not  veracious  appellation  of  these  re- 
formatory manifestations — is  the  liquor  question. 

In  some  quarters  it  is  labeled  the  “Temperance  Ques- 
tion.” Among  people  who  are  disposed  to  be  truthful  it 
is  tagged  the  “Prohibition  Wave.” 

Does  any  one  of  these  titles  reveal  the  true  character 
of  the  movement?  All  spontaneous  efforts  for  the  better- 
ment of  sociological  conditions  have  their  origin  among 
the  people  of  this  land  usually  with  remarkable  uniformity 
as  to  locality  and  creed  and  nationality.  They  move  on 
to  success  or  failure  on  their  merits.  The  present  prohi- 
bition wave — so-called — is  an  exception  to  this  usual  rule. 

The  late  free  silver  craze  was  an  instance  of  an  issue 
which  died  on  its  merits. 

But  the  “liquor  question”  is  still  with  us  in  all  its 
virulence,  and  is  as  far  from  settlement  as  it  was  fifty 
years  ago. 

The  present  uprising  against  the  “rum  power”  is  mani- 
fest in  many  quarters ; not,  however,  as  a spontaneous 
movement  of  the  people  anywhere,  but  as  a convenient 
cloak  for  the  ulterior  purposes  of  a numerous  religious 
sect  which  has  long  been  fighting  under  cover,  and  is  now 

285 


286 


PROHIBITION. 


contending  in  the  open  for  political  control  of  our  Govern- 
ment— State  and  national. 

Men  who  study  public  movements  of  all  varieties  have 
been  puzzled  for  some  time  by  the  continuing  vitality  of 
the  present  “anti-rum”  outbreak,  and  by  the  precision  with 
which  its  maneuvers  have  been  directed  by  a hidden  power. 

The  atmosphere  is  gradually  clearing.  The  Methodist 
Church  has  cast  off  its  temperance  domino,  has  flung  aside 
its  mask,  and  is  conspicuously  waging  a war  for  rulership 
in  State  and  national  politics.  It  has  no  chosen  arms  in 
this  contest.  All  weapons  are  fitted  to  its  hands  and  all 
alliances  are  welcome.  “The  end  justifies  the  means”  is 
apparently  the  watchword  of  the  fray. 

I We  read  in  the  New  Straitsville  (O.)  Record  of  Sep- 
/ tember  ii,  1908,  that  in  Ohio,  when  twenty  ministers 
recently  met  in  church  conclave,  they  so  far  forgot  the 
object  of  their  coming  together  that  before  discussing  any 
church  questions  at  all  they  passed  a resolution  “demand- 
ing” the  nomination  of  a certain  Senator  who  had  been 
their  servile  henchman  in  the  last  General  Assembly. 

In  the  Cincinnati  Enquirer  of  October  nth,  we  read 
the  following: 


CANNON’S  COURSE. 

Disapproved  by  the  Methodist  Conference  of  Missouri. 

SPECIAL  DISPATCH  TO  THE  ENQUIRER. 

Tarkio,  Mo.,  October  10. — The  Missouri  Conference  of  the  M. 
E.  Church  to-day  adopted  resolutions  expressing  disapproval  of  the 
course  taken  by  Speaker  Cannon  in  holding  up  the  interstate  liquor 
shipment  bill  and  urging  all  voters  to  support  candidates  for  Con- 
gress who  will  not  vote  for  the  re-election  of  Speaker  Cannon. 

It  is  hardly  possible  to  pick  up  a newspaper  printed 
anywhere  in  the  United  States  without  finding  some  evi- 
, dence  of  political  interference  in  purely  governmental  af- 
' fairs  by  the  anointed  of  the  IMethodist  fraternity  acting 
and  speaking  ex  cathedra. 


CHURCH  AND  POLITICS. 


287 


In  addition  to  opposing  the  re-election  of  Speaker  Can- 
non, they  were  sufficiently  active  to  prevent  the  re-nomina- 
tion  of  Congressman  John  Jenkins  in  northern  Wisconsin 
for  the  same  reason  that  has  aroused  their  animosity  against 
Speaker  Cannon ; namely,  official  opposition  to  an  uncon- 
stitutional interstate  liquor  shipment  law. 

These  are  minor  evidences  of  wide-spread  and  thor- 
oughly organized  efforts  of  the  Methodist  Church  to  domi- 
nate and  rule  in  State  and  nation. 

Ohio  is  just  now.  the  storm  center  of  the  prohibition 
outbreak.  The  conspiracy  in  Ohio  for  Methodist  suprem- 
acy had  its  inception  shortly  before  the  election  of 
Governor  John  M.  Pattison,  who  headed  the  Democratic 
ticket  in  the  fall  of  1906.  Mr.  Pattison’s  nomination  was 
brought  about  by  some  strange  combinations — as  was  his 
election. 

The  Democratic  party,  long  in  the  minority  in  Ohio 
as  elsewhere,  had  been  held  together  for  years  by  a remark- 
able body  of  loyal  and  sturdy  men  of  earnest  convictions 
and  high  ideals  who  were  Democrats  from  principle.  Trail- 
ing after  these  were  the  inevitable  camp  followers  with 
a scent  for  office  as  keen  as  their  lack  of  principle  in  ideals 
or  methods. 

These  mercenaries,  noting  the  growing  trend  towards 
“reform,”  and  “temperance”  became  active  in  their  search 
for  a candidate  who  would  loom  in  the  public  eye  as  an 
exponent  of  these  tendencies. 

No  one  has  ever  believed  that  the  late  Governor  Patti- 
son had  any  real  ambition  to  be  Governor  of  Ohio.  Those 
best  informed  have  always  held  the  belief  that  he  sought 
the  office  mainly  for  the  power  and  opportunity  it  would 
give  him  to  be  of  use  to  the  corporation  of  which  he  was 
president,  and  to  the  promotion  of  which  he  had  given  the 
best  years  of  his  life. 

This  company  has  always  been  officered  by  Methodists, 


288 


PROHIBITION. 


and  has  its  chief  patronage  among  the  adherents  of  that 
sect.  It  had  prospered  mightily  in  a business  exploited  along 
church  lines,  but  at  the  time  of  IMr.  Pattison’s  candidacy 
it  was  well  represented  in  nearly  every  county  in  Ohio. 

The  hungry  heelers  of  Democracy  had  not  overlooked 
this  fact,  nor  did  the  Anti-Saloon  League  with  its  Standard 
Oil  sinews  of  war  and  its  coffers  replete  with  the  offerings 
of  favor-seeking  trusts  and  corporations.  For  be  it  known 
that  with  the  Anti-Saloon  League  in  control  of  the  Legis- 
lature, the  purse  strings  of  the  favor-seekers  were  fairly 
floating  in  the  breeze. 

When  the  nominating  convention  met,  IMr.  Pattison 
was  the  only  candidate  presenting  a show  of  organization 
and  a compact  array  of  delegates. 

The  agents  of  his  insurance  company  in  every  county 
had  hustled  for  the  president  of  their  company  without 
regard  to  their  personal  political  preferences.  In  fact,  poli- 
tical preferences  were  of  small  significance  in  a campaign 
for  Methodist  Church  supremac}^  so  what  the  insurance 
agent,  usually  a IMethodist,  could  not  accomplish  in  a county 
in  the  way  of  capturing  delegates,  was  cheerfully  attended 
to  by  the  local  Methodist  preacher  with  the  result  that  when 
the  convention  met,  the  “brethren”  were  in  complete  con- 
trol of  the  situation. 

No  one  had  ever  charged  Mr.  Pattison  with  being  too 
strongly  imbued  with  the  tenets  of  Democracy.  His  en- 
vironments were  strongly  Republican,  and  his  ideas,  in  the 
opinion  of  men  who  knew  him  well,  all  leaned  in  the  same 
direction.  The  old-time  incorruptibles  of  the  Democratic 
party  viewed  these  tendencies  as  a leaning  toward  heresy, 
but  the  opportunists,  with  their  hunger  for  office,  welcomed 
success  at  any  price. 

]\Ir.  Pattison  was  nominated  by  the  efforts  of  the 
IMethodist  brethren,  aided  by  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
Democratic  party  who  were  notoriously  opposed  to  every- 


CHURCH  AND  POLITICS. 


289 


thing  that  Mr.  Pattison  stood  for,  but  who  were  ready  to 
vote  anybody  on  the  ticket  who  gave  promise  of  success. 
Mr.  Pattison  was  nominated. 

When  election  day  came  the  motley  cohorts  of  Patti- 
sonian  Democracy  marched  to  the  polls  and  elected  him. 

The  Methodist  preacher  and  his  psalm-singers  and  | 
camp-meeting  shouters  rubbed  elbows  with  the  poll  sellers, 
touts  and  gamblers,  and  the  horse  racing  fraternity,  all 
of  whom  were  disgruntled  at  Governor  Herrick  for  vetoing 
a race  track,  pool-selling  bill.  The  Anti-Saloon  League 
and  its  Standard  Oil  influence  were  in  evidence  on  all  hands. 
The  corporations  and  trusts  came  down  handsomely  at  the 
bidding  of  their  Methodist  allies,  and  the  followers  of 
Wesley  found  themselves  easily  in  the  saddle  in  their  first 
openly  conducted  political  effort  for  State  domination. 

The  death  of  Governor  Pattison  followed.  Later  came 
the  suits  against  the  Union  Central  Life  Insurance  Com- 
pany in  large  amounts  for  unpaid  taxes  brought  by  the 
treasurer  of  Plamilton  County,  Ohio.  One  of  these  bitterly 
contested  legal  battles  has  been  waged  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Ohio,  and  a decision  (from  which  there  can  be 
no  appeal)  has  been  rendered  against  the  company  for 
something  like  one  hundred  and  eighty-four  thousand  dol- 
lars; and  the  company  has  just  effected  a compromise  of 
other  pending  tax  cases  by  paying  seven  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  dollars  into  the  county  treasury. 

It  was  unfortunate  for  Democracy  that  it  should  have 
been  led  by  its  hunger  for  the  flesh  pots  of  office  into  an 
alliance  with  any  sect  or  creed.  It  was  still  more  unfor- 
tunate that  the  sect  scrambling  for  power  should  have 
chosen  for  its  standard  bearer  a man  who  in  his  inaugural 
address  exhorted  for  civic  righteousness  and  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  moral  law,  but  who  according  to  the  late  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio,  had  failed  to  pay  to  the 


290 


PROHIBITION. 


treasurer  of  his  home  county  the  taxes  due  by  the  insur- 
ance company  of  which  he  was  president. 

Democracy  was  unwise  and  misled  in  selecting  such 
a candidate.  The  Methodist  Church,  in  its  ambition  to 
control  politics  and  make  itself  a State  power  in  Ohio,  did 
only  what  might  be  expected  of  an  organization  of  its  nature 
when  it  voted  unanimously,  on  the  Democratic  ticket,  for 
a man  who  was  not  at  heart  a Democrat,  and  when  it  took 
up  for  its  candidate  and  as  the  exponent  of  its  morals  a 
man  who  accepted  the  nomination  chiefly  because,  in  the 
opinion  of  those  who  were  close  to  him,  he  hoped  in  the 
event  of  election  to  be  powerful  enough  to  cover  up  the 
tax  omissions  of  his  insurance  company. 

Governor  Pattison  was  the  only  Democrat  on  the  ticket 
j who  was  elected,  and  he  made  public  acknowledgment  that 
he  owed  his  election  to  the  “great  ^Methodist  Church  of 
the  State  of  Ohio.’’  Lieut.  Gov.  Andrew  L.  Harris  was 
a Republican,  and  upon  his  accession  to  the  throne,  the 
Methodist  contention  for  political  power  found  a staunch 
supporter. 

Caring  no  more  for  temperance  than  do  the  promoters 
of  the  conspiracy  who  use  prohibition  as  a subterfuge  for 
their  political  ends,  Gov.  Harris  has  been  the  pliant  and 
subservient  tool  of  the  three  forces  which  conspire  to  carry- 
forward the  Methodist  supremacy  idea. 

.Governor  Harris  is  an  astute  cross-roads  politician. 
With  the  face  of  a fox  and  the  instincts  of  a weasel,  he 
knows  where  the  ducklings  nestle  and  the  broilers  roost, 
and  he  goes  after  them.  His  cow-boy  methods  and  stage- 
farmer  make-up  are  cultivated  for  scenic  effect.  Realizing 
that  the  crop  of  Methodist  votes  harvested  by  Pattison 
would  be  a convenient  and  useful  adjunct  to  his  granary, 
he  has  used  the  power  of  his  great  office  strictly  and  solely 
in  the  interest  of  the  trusts  and  corporations,  the  Anti- 
Saloon  League  and  the  prohibitionists.  These  three  forces 


CHURCH  AND  POLITICS. 


291 


may  be  rightly  labeled  the  Wallet,  and  the  Brains  and 
Right-hand  of  the  Methodist  Church,  in  its  present  con- 
tention for  power. 

The  problem  is  an  interesting  one,  and  keen  interest  is 
felt  in  its  working  out. 

The  masses  of  the  American  people  nominally  educated, 
in  the  sense  that  a little  schooling  constitutes  education,  are 
asleep  as  yet  to  the  portent  of  this  church  attempt  to 
control  in  State  and  national  politics.  When  the  awaken- 
ing comes,  who  can  forecast  the  result?  Will  our  people 
permit  themselves  to  be  bound  in  the  chains  of  clerical 
slavery  by  the  rack  and  thumb-screw  methods  of  the  middle 
ages,  or  will  they  arise  in  their  might  and  rend  the  con- 
spirators who  are  working  to  overturn  the  cherished  doc- 
trine of  separation  of  the  state  and  church,  one  of  the 
boasted  tenets  of  our  governmental  creed? 

Time  alone  will  tell,  but  there  are  those  who  predict 
that  when  the  awakening  does  come,  it  will  be  a day  of 
wrath  and  quick  judgment. 

Tax-exempt  churches  will  not  then  be  used  as  political 
rostrums  for  the  enslavement  of  free  Americans  by  any 
creed  or  sect.  Let  us  hope  that  in  the  reckoning,  justice 
and  wisdom  may  prevail  to  the  extent  at  least  that  the 
innocent  may  not  suffer  with  the  guilty. 

1909. 


Ckurck  and  Legislation. 


The  following  essay  from  the  pen  of  Professor  Denney 
appeared  in  the  Toronto  Sunday  World  of  September  5, 
i^og,  with  the  editorial  preface  zvhich  is  here  printed  in 
full.  Our  regret  is  that  this  excellent  dissertation  on  the 
relations  of  the  church  to  tlve  morals  of  legislation  cannot 
be  spread  before  every  voter  in  the  United  States. 

“In  this  issue  the  Sunday  World  departs  from  its  usual 
form  of  short,  succinct,  pungent,  practical  editorial,  in  order 
to  reprint  in  full  the  most  remarkable  essay  in  evangeli- 
cal criticism  that  modern  theologians  have  directed  against 
the  church  itself,  in  the  attempt  to  define  the  essential  func- 
tion and  duty  of  the  church.  The  essay  is  printed  from  The 
British  Weekly  and  comes  from  the  pen  of  Professor  James 
Denney,  a clear-visioned,  sane  and  astute  theologian.  Put 
bluntly  and  concisely.  Professor  Denney  says,  in  substance. 
‘Leave  legislation  and  politics  to  legislators  and  politicians. 
It  is  the  duty  of  the  church  to  save  souls.’  But  by  all  means 
read  Dr.  Denney’s  own  words — every  one  of  them — which 
follow.” — Editor  of  the  Toronto  Sunday  World: 

Professor  Denney  writes  from  the  standpoint  of  a Chris- 
tian and  an  Englishman.  His  references  are,  therefore,  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  are  British  and  monarchical,  but 
they  are  wonderfully  pertinent  to  present  conditions  in  the 
United  States. 

292 


CHURCH  AND  LEGISLATION. 


293 


He  first  tells  us  that  all  men,  however  far  they  may  be 
from  agreeing  in  their  conceptions  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
may  agree  upon  one  point,  namely : That  all  the  relations 
of  life,  all  the  activities  of  men  should  be  regulated  by  the 
spirit  and  teachings  of  God.  He  then  states : 

“The  question  on  which  men’s  minds  are  not  clear  is 
what  methods  are  open  to  the  church  in  working  toward 
this  end.  In  particular  they  are  not  clear  how  far  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  church  to  work  directly  for  such  legislative 
action  as  may  contribute  to  its  attainment. 

“Part  of  the  difficulty  we  have  in  determining  the  duty 
of  the  church  is  due  to  the  fact  that  in  a modern  European 
community  the  church  and  the  state  to  a large  extent  con- 
sist of  the  same  persons,  and  thanks  to  the  truth  covered  in 
the  term  Christendom,  have  to  a large  extent  the  same 
ends.  Both  of  them  want  to  see  the  same  or  similar  results, 
and  the  question  which  confuses  many  Christians  is  how 
far,  for  the  attainment  of  these  results,  the  church  should 
directly  aim  at  controlling  the  legislative  action  of  the  state. 
Is  the  specific  end  which  the  church  has  in  view  likely  to  be 
furthered  when  the  church  devotes  a great  part  of  its  energy 
to  a program  which  can  only  be  carried  through  in  Parlia- 
ment? 

“It  is  easy  to  understand  why  many  should  think  it  will 
be.  Impulsive  and  generous  natures,  moved  to  the  depths 
by  the  vested  interests  of  iniquity  which  trample  on  human 
souls,  and  convinced  that  nothing  but  force  can  sweep  them 
away,  are  ready  to  appeal  to  force.  There  is  nothing  they 
would  not  do  to  see  this  or  that  evil,  which  devastates  the 
life  of  man,  violently  suppressed.  They  call  loudly  on  the 
church  to  join  them  in  appeals  to  the  Legislature,  some- 
times they  impeach  the  church  of  insensibility,  and  of  con- 
temptuous disregard  for  the  spirit  of  its  Master,  if  it  is 
slow  to  respond  to  their  call.  Perhaps  it  does  not  occur  to 
them  that  legislation  is  force.  To  legislate  is  to  take  the 


294 


PROHIBITION. 


sword,  and  while  there  is  no  doubt  a power  which  has  this 
as  its  divinely  appointed  function,  it  may  well  cross  the  mind 
of  the  church  whether  the  function  is  hers.  A church  which 
is  acting  on  society  mainly  through  its  action  on  the  State 
may  well  have  misgivings.  One  of  the  most  penetrating 
minds  of  the  Scottish  Church,  at  the  period  when  it  was 
beginning  to  realize  what  all  its  national  contendings 
brought  in  their  train — Halyburton,  professor  of  divinity 
at  St.  Andrews — expressed  his  doubts  of  a religion  mainly 
taken  up  with  state  affairs;  and  in  his  later  years,  as 
we  know,  similar  doubts  vexed  a Christian  so  disinterested 
in  his  public  spirit  as  Dr.  Dale.  There  is  certainly  some- 
thing in  this  to  ponder.  It  is  not  necessarily  what  is  wisest 
and  best  in  us  which  believes  in  short  cuts  and  compulsory 
methods.  It  is  quite  as  probable  as  not  that  Jesus  wished 
to  correct  this  misdirected  ardor,  when  He  said,  ‘The  king- 
dom of  heaven  suffereth  violence,  and  the  violent  take  it  by 
force.’ 

“Age  according  to  Goethe,  makes  us  all  quietists,  but  it 
is  not  age  only  which  makes  us  skeptical  about  the  law,  or 
about  legislative  methods,  in  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  God. 
No  doubt  there  are  good  laws  and  bad  laws;  laws  which, 
so  to  speak,  provide  a good  soil  for  the  seed  of  the  king- 
dom by  providing  a sound  environment  for  life  to  grow 
in ; or  which,  on  the  other  hand,  maintain  an  environment 
practically  fatal  to  any  higher  life.  There  are  good  laws 
and  bad  laws,  and  in  a free  country  it  is  for  the  citizens  to 
apply  their  intelligence  and  conscience  to  the  subject,  and  to 
make  the  laws  as  serviceable  as  they  can  be  made  to  the 
common  good.  But  all  who  have  thought  deeply  about 
human  affairs,  or,  to  put  it  less  arrogantly  and  more  truly, 
all  who  have  felt  deeply  with  human  beings,  know  that  when 
the  laws  have  done  their  utmost  the  whole  work  of  the 
church  remains  to  be  done.  We  do  not  need  to  be  c}Trical, 
and  say,  with  Tacitus,  the  multiplication  of  laws  measures 


CHURCH  AND  LEGISLATION. 


295 


the  decay  of  the  state.  But  who  does  not  feel  that  the 
much  experienced,  deeply  sympathizing  soul  of  a great  and 
good  man  is  revealed  in  the  exquisite  lines  which  Johnson 
contributed  to  Goldsmith’s  ‘Traveler’: 

‘How  small,  of  all  that  human  hearts  endure. 

That  part  which  laws  or  kings  can  cause  or  cure !” 

“It  is  the  large  outstanding  part  with  which  the  church 
must  always  be  mainly  concerned.  Of  all  the  wonderful 
expressions  in  St.  Paul,  there  is  none  which  at  the  present 
moment  better  merits  reflection  than  that  which  stands  at 
the  head  of  the  most  glorious  chapter  in  the  New  Testament 
— what  the  law  could  not  do.  There  is  no  reason  for  the 
tense:  it  may  just  as  well  be  rendered  in  the  present.  What 
the  law  cannot  do — what  no  law  can  do,  whether  it  issue 
from  Sinai  or  from  Westminster:  this  is  the  subject  of  the 
gospel,  and  the  main  concern  of  the  church. 

“It  is  one  drawback  to  the  faith  in  legislation  which 
seems  to  prevail  in  certain  quarters  that  it  tends  to  throw 
into  the  background  the  things  which  should  be  central. 
Men  look  for  a new  heaven  and  a new  earth  to  acts  of 
Parliament,  and  all  the  time  sin  and  death  are  outstanding 
quantities,  neglible  remainders,  apparently,  to  be  thought 
about  after  the  bills  have  been  carried  which  are  to  make 
everything  else  new.  A disposition  is  fostered  which  ex- 
pects from  law  what  law  can  never  yield,  and  every  advance 
in  legislation  is  followed  by  a disappointment,  not  rarely 
by  a reaction.  It  is  not  sufficiently  considered  that  the  law, 
which  registers  the  average  sense  of  right  and  wrong  in 
the  community,  is  only  a challenge  to  the  ingenuity  of  the 
bad;  it  does  nothing  to  make  them  good.  Frame  it  as 
subtly  as  men  will,  it  is  only  a document  after  all,  and  the 
chances  are  that  the  wild  living  intellect  of  man  will  get 
around  it  somehow.  The  church’s  direct  interest  is  not  in 
framing  acts  of  Parliament,  no  matter  how  Christian  their 


296 


PROHIBITION. 


motive ; it  is  in  regenerating  men,  who  will  give  expression, 
indeed,  to  their  new  life,  in  their  laws  as  in  all  their  activi- 
ties, but  who,  just  because  they  are  what  they  are  in  entire 
independence  of  the  laws  which  they  make,  will  have  no 
vain  expectations  of  what  these  laws  will  do  for  others. 

“It  is  another  drawback  to  the  church’s  disposition  to 
rely  on  what  the  state  can  do  that  it  tends  to  introduce  the 
temper  and  the  antagonisms  of  the  state  into  its  own  body, 
and  to  perplex  rather  than  guide  its  members  in  their  action 
as  citizens.  A self-governing  country  is  one  in  which  the 
various  interests  of  the  citizens  secure  their  rights  by  a 
continuous  process  of  conflict  and  adjustment.  It  is  a coun- 
try governed  by  parties  and  by  compromises  between 
them.  It  is  not  accidental  but  inevitable  that  one  of  these 
parties  should  be  more  stationary  and  the  other  more  pro- 
gressive; that  one  should  represent  the  experience  (and  the 
prejudices)  of  the  people,  the  other  its  inspiration  (and  its 
fads).  There  is  no  reason  why  there  should  not  be  Chris- 
tians in  both.  It  was  a youthful  indiscretion  of  Professor 
Drummond  when  he  said  that  Liberalism  is  Christianity  in 
politics.  But  when  the  church  identifies  itself  with  this  or 
that  policy  in  legislation,  what  is  the  result?  It  is  either 
that  it  becomes  identified  with  one  political  party  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  other — as  if  a man  could  not  be  a Christian 
and  a Conservative,  or  a Christian  and  a Liberal,  at  the 
same  time ; or  that  it  aspires  to  act  in  politics  as  a non- 
partisan, or  purely  Christian  party.  Both  have  been  seen. 
The  writer  has  been  present  at  the  session  of  a church 
court  ‘on  public  questions,’  which  passed  nem.  con.  a series 
of  resolutions  that  would  have  been  entirely  appropriate  at 
a Radical  meeting;  the  defense  was  that  this  was  the  atti- 
tude forced  on  it  by  another  branch  of  the  church  which 
consistently  acted  in  the  opposite  sense.  Whatever  the 
cause,  the  result  was  surely  deplorable,  for  the  church  must 
lose  fatally  in  its  power  to  affect  public  life  if  it  does  not 


CHURCH  AND  LEGISLATION. 


297 


number  among  its  sincere  and  devoted  members  those  who 
can  carry  its  spirit  into  the  organizations  by  which  public 
life  is  inevitably  controlled.  As  for  a specifically  Christian 
party,  much  as  it  has  been  talked  of,  it  is  hardly  worth 
discussing.  The  existing  parties  have  been  naturally  pro- 
duced, and  will  be  naturally  maintained,  by  political  causes, 
and  like  everything  else  in  the  world  they  are  there  to  be 
Christianized.  If  they  cannot  be  Christianized,  then  politics 
is  doomed  to  be  an  unchristian  business ; if  they  can,  the 
specifically  Christian  party  is  superfluous.  We  may  thank- 
fully accept  the  latter  alternative  as  the  true  one;  for  a 
party  which  failed  to  see  that  the  natural  organization  of 
political  life  in  a free  country  had  something  inevitable  in 
it  could  only  degenerate  into  ineffective  Pharisaism  and 
pedantry. 

“The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  is  that  the  church  will  not 
only  do  its  immediately  Christian  duty  best,  but  best  serve  the 
state,  if  it  leaves  legislation  to  the  institution  to  which  in 
the  divine  order  it  belongs.  It  lies  properly  within  its  duty 
to  promote  temperance,  but  it  is  as  completely  mistaken 
when  it  petitions  for  Mr.  Asquith’s  bill  as  when  it  petitions 
for  or  against  Mr.  Balfour’s.  What  is  wanted  is  that  its 
members  act  in  either  case  with  the  sense  of  responsibility 
to  Christ,  not  that  the  church  as  a body  identify  itself  with 
a given  policy.  It  may  be  properly  eager  to  close  public 
houses ; but  what  it  has  mainly  to  remember  is  that  they 
would  all  close  automatically,  within  the  briefest  of  time 
limits,  if  nobody  went  in ; and  that  till  they  are  closed  so,  the 
interests  of  the  kingdom  of  God  are  not  sensibly  affected 
one  way  or  another.  It  may  be  properly  interested  in  the 
material  well-being  of  all  men ; but  it  is  no  part  of  its 
function  to  support  anybody’s  right-to-work  bill.  It  needs 
more  than  good  will  to  act  in  such  things ; it  needs  an  intelli- 
gence of  conditions  which  it  is  no  part  of  the  church’s 
business  as  a body  to  understand.  The  church’s  business 


298 


PROHIBITION. 


remains,  it  may  be  said,  when  economic  security  has  been 
achieved.  It  is  not  economic  security  which  is  going  to 
secure  the  kingdom.  It  is  some  degree  of  insecurity — it  is 
the  painful  necessity  of  being  anxious  about  our  livelihood — 
that  generates  the  elementary  virtues  of  industry  and  hon- 
esty on  which  the  stability  of  society  depends.  If  every 
man  and  woman  in  the  British  Islands  had  a hundred  pounds 
a year  absolutely  secured,  the  real  question  would  be,  not 
whether  the  kingdom  of  God  had  come,  but  whether  the 
country  was  habitable  for  decent  people.  All  concentration 
of  mind  on  legal  methods  for  attaining  this  or  that  end, 
even  in  the  moral  world,  is  indirectly  prejudicial  to  Christian 
character,  because  it  destroys  the  sense  of  moral  pro- 
portion.” 


Tke  Ckange  in  tke  Feminine  Ideal 


No  one  will  attempt  to  deny  that  Margaret  Deland,  the 
well-known  authoress,  is  capable  of  speaking  wisely  on 
questions  of  public  interest.  Her  “Old  Chester  Tales" 
alone  have  won  for  her  a permanent  place  in  the  respect 
and  affections  of  the  reading  public.  The  brain  that  could 
create  good  old  “Dr.  Lavendar,”  and  endow  him  with  the 
wisdom  to  deal  with  the  emergencies  with  which  he  is  con- 
fronted, must  have  a large  faculty  for  philosophy  in  all  di- 
rections. 

Under  the  title  “The  Change  in  the  Feminine  Ideal,” 
Mrs.  Deland  contributed  a very  able  article  to  the  March, 
1910,  number  of  the  Atlantic  Monthly.  As  a portion  of  the 
article  falls  in  line  with  the  subjects  of  this  volume,  we 
herewith  reproduce  it : 

“The  New  Woman  tried  to  reform  details,  to  check 
symptoms.  She  would  cut  off  the  branches  of  evil,  over- 
looking the  root  deep  down  in  human  nature;  she  would, 
in  fact,  produce  spirituality  by  legislation,  forgetting  that 
the  Kingdom  of  God  is  within  us — must  be  within  us ! 
But  the  process  with  which  Nature  works  to  build  that 
kingdom  is  too  slow  for  her  fury  of  impatience  for  good- 
ness. 

“Hot  with  her  new  sense  of  social  responsibility,  she 
says  drunkenness  is  of  the  devil ; and  the  advocates  of 
high  license  are  procurers  to  the  lords  of  hell.  She  is 
going  to  shut  up  the  saloon — just  as  the  pressure  of  her 

299 


300 


PROHIBITION. 


influence  has  already  abolished  the  canteen  in  the  army, 
with  a corresponding  and  awful  increase  of  drunkenness. 
The  education  of  self-restraint  has  no  part  in  the  New 
Woman’s  scheme  of  reform.  She  does  not  take  into  account 
the  slow  and  painful  process  of  evolution  which  has,  in  a 
hundred  years,  brought  about  a finer  temperance  than  our 
forbears  could  have  dreamed  of,  in  the  days  when  it  was 
gentlemanly  to  roll  under  the  table  after  dinner.  Yet 
think  what  it  means  to  character  to  be  temperate,  rather 
than  to  be  carried  about,  whither  one  would  not,  in  the 
strait-jacket  of  legally  enforced  total  abstinence! — to  say 
nothing  of  the  criminals  that  such  enforcement  would  in- 
evitably create  out  of  decent  folk. 

“With  the  ballot  in  her  hand,  the  New  Woman  would 
make  laws  to  prevent  drunkenness.  In  other  words,  she 
seems  to  confuse  a purely  individual  issue  with  a social 
issue.  She  would  bend  society  to  the  needs  of  the  individ- 
ual, for  her  conviction  of  the  necessity  of  legislative  inter- 
ference spring  so  often  from  personal  experience.  Women 
suffer  from  the  curse  of  liquor  as  men  do  not.  The 
drunkard  suffers  in  his  own  person,  as  he  deserves  to  do; 
but  his  wife  or  mother  suffers  because  he  suffers.  Sting- 
ing, then,  with  her  personal  misery,  the  New  Woman  says, 
T will  close  the  saloons  so  that  temptation  shall  be  removed,’ 
— with  never  a thought  for  the  education  it  would  be  to 
some  other  woman’s  son  to  learn  to  pass  that  saloon  without 
going  in;  still  less  does  she  reflect  upon  that  nobler  edu- 
cation of  moderation  which  means  the  sane  use  of  liquor. 
Yet  which  is  better — to  remove  temptation,  or  to  teach 
people  to  overcome  temptation?  To  prevent  badness  is  to 
prevent  goodness,  for  an  unwilled  action  has  no  moral  sig- 
nificance. And  certainly  the  highest  righteousness  includes 
the  highest  power  of  being  bad  if  you  want  to  be.” 


Limitations  of  Reform 


The  following  excerpts  are  from  a contribution  of  Gov- 
ernor Joseph  W.  Folk,  of  Missouri,  to  the  Saturday  Evening 
Post.  The  article  is  entitled  “The  Limitations  of  Reform.” 
The  question  is  handled  by  Governor  Folk  with  such  breadth 
of  understanding  that  it  possesses  unusual  merit. 

For  instance,  in  the  article  we  find  this  striking  sen- 
tence : 

“The  laws  should  go  no  further  than  to  protect  each 
man  in  his  rights ; when  a law  goes  further  than  that  in  an 
attempt  to  make  bad  people  good,  it  must  in  the  nature  of 
things  be  futile.  We  can  not  hope  to  change  the  hearts  of 
men  by  law,  and  only  have  the  right  to  keep  them  from  in- 
fringing on  the  rights  of  others.” 

Mr.  Folk  also  strikes  a live  keynote  when  in  his  ar- 
ticle he  says : 

“Sometimes  reform  may  go  mad  and  become  fanatical, 
thus  endangering  the  things  it  should  protect  and  reform.” 

But  the  real  breadth  of  Mr.  Folk’s  discussion  is  shown 
in  the  following; 

“The  right  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of 
one’s  own  conscience  was  fought  for  for  years,  and  finally 
established  in  this  country.  We  can  not  compel  men  by 
law  to  worship  in  any  particular  place,  or  any  particular 
way,  or  to  worship  at  all.  We  may  go  to  church  on  Sunday 
and  think  that  others  should  do  likewise,  but  we  can  not 
compel  others  to  do  so,  nor  can  others  prohibit  us.  One 

301 


302 


PROHIBITION. 


who  desires  to  worship  in  a particular  way,  not  inconsistent 
with  public  morals,  has  a right  not  to  be  disturbed  by  others 
who  do  not  desire  to  worship  as  he  does.” 

And  then  touching  on  reform  and  the  position  it  should 
occupy  the  ex-governor  very  truthfully  says; 

“Reform  is  the  medium  between  revolution  and  fanati- 
cism. The  greatest  enemy  of  reform  is  fanaticism,  and  the 
effort  should  be  to  keep  reform  from  becoming  fanatical 
attempts  to  control  the  conscience  of  all  in  accordance  with 
our  own.” 

Of  the  refonu  battle  between  dollars  and  morals  Mr. 
Folk  says  that  the  effort  should  be  to  maintain  inviolate  the 
principles  of  self-government — “to  secure  the  largest  liberty 
of  the  individual  consistent  with  law  and  order.” 

The  real  cap-sheaf  of  Mr.  Folk’s  able  article  is  found 
in  its  closing  sentence ; 

“The  object  of  all  real  reform  is  freedom.  Freedom 
must  be  safeguarded  by  law  and  the  ‘limitation  of  freedom 
is  fair  play.’  ” 


Tke  Committee  of  Fifty 


A REVIEW  OF  REPORT  AS  TO  THE  SOCIAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE 
SALOON  IN  GREAT  CITIES. 


In  presenting  to  our  readers  some  comments  on  the 
report  of  the  Committee  of  Fifty,  concerning  the  “Social 
Aspects  of  the  Saloon  in  Great  Cities,”  a few  words  of 
explanation  may  be  necessary  that  those  who  have  not 
followed  the  history  of  the  “Committee  of  Fifty  to  In- 
vestigate the  Liquor  Problem,”  may  be  informed  as  to  the 
nature  of  this  committee,  and  the  scope  of  its  work. 

The  investigations  of  this  committee  were  pursued 
through  the  labors  of  sub-committees  appointed  to  study 
special  phases  of  the  liquor  problem,  and  the  results  were 
given  to  the  public  in  six  books  bearing  the  following  titles : 

“The  Liquor  Problem  in  Its  Legislative  Aspects”  (one 
volume). 

“Economic  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Problem”  (one  volume). 
“Substitutes  for  the  Saloon”  (one  volume). 

“Physiological  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Problem”  (two  vol- 
umes). 

“The  Liquor  Problem — A Summary  of  the  Investigations 
Conducted  by  the  Committee  of  Fifty,  1893-1903”  (one 
volume). 

All  of  the  above  are  published  by  Messrs.  Houghton, 
Mifflin  & Company,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  and  form  a record 
well  worthy  of  perusal  by  every  earnest  student  of  great 
sociological  questions. 


303 


304 


PROHIBITION. 


The  work  of  the  “Committee  of  Fifty”  is  accepted  as 
the  most  thorough  and  impartial  investigation  of  the  liquor 
question  ever  made  in  the  United  States. 

And  who  compose  the  “Committee  of  Fifty?” 

From  the  preface  of  the  volume  above  referred  to, 
entitled  “The  Liquor  Problem  in  Its  Legislative  Aspects,” 
we  glean  the  following  facts  which  enlighten  us  as  to  the 
origin  of  this  “Committee  of  Fifty” : 

“For  several  years,  beginning  in  1889,  a group  of  fifteen 
gentlemen  who  came  to  be  known  as  the  Sociological 
Group,  prepared  some  papers  on  subjects  in  sociology, 
which  were  published  in  The  Century  Magazine,  and  in 
The  Forum.  * * * Meetings  of  the  group  were  held  from 
time  to  time  in  New  York  City,  at  which  there  was  a 
useful  interchange  of  opinion  on  various  social  topics.  In 
1893  these  gentlemen  decided  to  enlarge  the  number  of  the 
group  to  fifty,  and  to  concentrate  their  attention  on  the 
liquor  problem  in  the  United  States.  * * * The  members 
of  the  committee  bore  their  own  traveling  expenses ; but 
a few  thousand  dollars  were  raised  by  private  subscrip- 
tion, mostly  in  New  York  and  Boston,  to  defray  the  ex- 
penses of  their  investigations.” 

Naturally  a committee  composed  of  fifty  men,  the  ma- 
jority of  them  past  middle  life,  is  subject  to  changes  caused 
by  death  or  resignation,  but  in  1905  the  officers  and  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  were  the  following: 


OFFICERS. 

President — Hon.  Seth  Low,  LL.  D. 

Vice-President — Charles  Dudley  Warner,  Esq. 

Secretary — Prof.  Frances  G.  Peabodj%  D.  D. 

Treasurer— Wm.  E.  Dodge,  Esq. 

Executive  Board  (the  above  named  officers  and) — Dr.  J.  S. 
Billings;  Charles  W.  Eliot,  LL.  D. ; Col.  Jacob  L.  Gieene,  and 
Hon.  Carroll  D.  Wright,  A.  M.,  LL.  D. 


COMMITTEE  OF  FIFTY. 


305 


MEMBERS. 


Prof.  Felix  Adler, 

Bishop  Edw.  G.  Andrews,  D .D. 
Prof.  W.  O.  Atwater, 

Dr.  J.  S.  Billings, 

Charles  J.  Bonaparte,  Esq., 
Prof.  H.  P.  Bowditch, 

Rev.  Prof.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
Z.  R.  Brockway,  Esq., 

John  Graham  Brooks,  Esq., 
Hon.  James  C.  Carter, 

Prof.  R.  H.  Chittenden, 

Rt.  Rev.  Thomas  Conaty,  D.  D., 
John  H.  Converse,  Esq., 

Wm.  Bayard  Cutting,  Esq., 

Rev.  S.  W.  Dike,  LL.  D., 

Wm.  E.  Dodge,  Esq., 

Rev.  Father  A.  P.  Doyle, 
Charles  W.  Eliot,  LL.  D., 

Rev.  Father  Walter  Elliot, 
Prof.  Richard  T.  Ely, 

Prof.  Henry  W.  Farnam, 

Rt.  Rev.  T.  F.  Gailor,  D.  D., 
Daniel  C.  Gilman,  LL.  D., 

Rev.  Washington  Gladden, 
D.D.,  LL.D., 

Richard  W.  Gilder.  Esq., 


Dr.  E.  R.  L.  Gould, 

Col.  Jacob  L.  Greene,  LL.  D., 
Dr.  Edward  M.  Hartwell, 

Rev.  W.  R.  Huntington,  D.  D., 
Wm.  Preston  Johnston,  LL.  D., 
Prof.  J.  F.  Jones, 

Hon.  Seth  Low,  LL.  D., 

James  MacAlister,  LL.  D., 

Rt.  Rev.  Alexander  Mackay- 
Smith,  D.  D., 

Prof.  J.  J.  McCook, 

Rev.  T.  T.  Munger,  D.  D., 
Robert  C.  Ogden,  Esq., 

Rev.  Prof.  Francis  G.  Pea- 
body, D.  D., 

Rt.  Rev.  H.  C.  Potter,  D.  D., 
Rev.  W.  1.  Rainsford,  D.  D., 
Jacob  H.  Schiff,  Esq., 

Rev.  Prof.  C.  W.  Shields,  D.  D., 
Prof.  W.  M.  Sloane, 

Charley  Dudley  Warner,  Esq., 
Dr.  Wm.  H.  Welch, 

Frederick  H.  Wines,  LL.  D., 
Hon.  Carroll  D.  Wright,  A.  M., 
LL.  D. 


It  would  be  difficult  to  select  fifty  men  of  higher  char- 
acter and  scholarship  in  various  channels  of  intellectual 
effort  than  are  found  on  the  roster  of  this  committee.  This 
report  is  entitled  to  entire  confidence  because  everything 
given  by  this  committee  to  the  public  carries  the  impress  of 
earnest  effort  and  absolute  fairness  in  the  conduct  of  their 
investigations. 

The  significant  feature  of  the  reports  made  by  the  sub- 
committees appointed  for  special  local  study,  and  later 
published  as  the  report  of  the  entire  Committee  of  Fifty, 
is  the  uniformity  of  the  information  gleaned  by  investiga- 
tion in  Chicago,  New  York,  Boston,  San  Francisco  and 
Pittsburg.  Concerning  all  of  these  great  cities,  centers  as 
they  are  of  varied  and  extensive  industries,  and  teeming 
with  a foreign  and  liquor-consuming  population,  the  re- 


3o6 


PROHIBITION. 


ports  are  at  one  in  declaring  that  the  saloons  fill  a social 
need  as  the  clubs  and  meeting-places  of  men  of  small 
means.  We  here  quote  a few  pertinent  paragraphs  from 
the  volume,  “Economic  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Problem” : 

“Latterly  men  have  begun  to  inquire  whether,  after  all, 
current  views  have  consigned  the  saloon  to  its  proper  place 
in  our  social  economy.  If  the  saloon  be  but  a destroying 
force  in  the  community,  how  could  it  thus  long  have  escaped 
destruction?  Since  the  saloon  remains,  is  it  not  probable 
that  it  ministers  to  deep-rooted  wants  of  men  which  so  far 
no  other  agency  supplies?” 

Speaking  of  the  saloons  in  the  Jewish  quarter  of  New 
York  City,  south  of  East  Houston  Street  and  east  of  the 
Bowery,  the  committee  says ; 

“Here  then,  we  find  saloon  keepers  and  saloon  patrons 
of  a most  abstemious  race,  thrifty  often  to  penuriousness, 
among  whom  drunkards  are  exceedingly  rare.  Yet  they 
drink,  and  the  saloon  is  to  them  an  important  institution.” 

Of  the  saloons  in  the  Italian  quarter  the  committee 
says : 

“Drinking  to  the  point  of  intoxication  is  the  exception 
in  these  saloons,  for  the  Italians  are  a temperate  people. 
To  them  the  saloon  means,  in  the  first  instance,  social  op- 
portunity unpurchasable  elsewhere  for  any  price  within 
their  reach,  and  without  which  their  lives  would  be  a dreari- 
waste.  Drink,  though  inseparable  from  the  saloon,  does 
not  appear  to  be  indulged  in  by  a majority  for  drink’s 
sake,  but  as  a means  to  greater  sociality  and  an  unavoid- 
able tribute  for  the  privileges  of  the  place.” 

As  to  German  saloons  the  committee  remarks : 

“The  characteristics  of  the  ordinal-)^  Gennan  beer  shops, 
such  as  abound  in  the  typically  German  districts,  are  so 
generally  known  that  little  need  be  said  about  them.  One 
observes  in  them  a large  consumption  of  beer  and  various 
foods,  little  visible  intoxication,  and  an  air  of  heartiness 


COMMITTEE  OF  FIFTY. 


307 


(Geniuthlichkeit)  all  the  German’s  own.  It  is  expected 
that  the  patron  will  take  his  ease  here,  every  convenience 
being  afforded  for  that  purpose,  and  other  means  than 
drinking  are  at  hand  to  pass  the  idle  hour. 

“In  the  degree  that  beer  to  the  German  is  a necessity 
of  life,  in  the  same  degree  the  saloon  stands  for  beer- 
drinking, but  not  for  a place  of  inebriation.  If  it  were 
but  this,  would  the  self-respecting  German  workman  take 
his  wife  and  other  female  members  of  his  family  there? 
A craving  for  Geselligkeit  (sociability)  is  probably  more 
developed  among  the  Germans  than  among  any  other  people. 
The  saloon  provides  the  only  place  in  which  it  can  be  ob- 
tained for  a nominal  price  by  thousands  of  sober  and 
thrifty  Germans. 

“The  tavern  instinct  of  our  Saxon  forefathers  is  the 
chief  impulse,  aside  from  the  drink  itself,  which  draws 
their  hosts  within  the  saloons  that  line  our  streets.  This 
instinct  must  be  reckoned  with.” 

Prof.  Walter  A.  Wyckoff,  famous  for  his  first-hand 
studies  of  social  conditions,  thus  expresses  his  views  as  to 
the  saloon: 

“It  is  a serious  mistake  to  suppose  that  saloon  keepers 
as  a class  are  bent  upon  the  destruction  of  their  fellow- 
men  and  callous  to  any  appeal  for  help  from  their  victims. 
They  are  often  men  of  quite  singular  practical  helpfulness 
to  the  people  about  them. 

“The  saloon  in  relation  to  the  wage-earning  classes  of 
America  is  an  organ  of  high  development,  adapting  itself 
with  singular  perfectness  in  catering  in  a hundred  ways  to 
the  social  and  political  needs  of  men.” 

The  committee  devotes  a special  volume  to  the  subject — 
“Substitutes  for  the  Saloon.”  It  concedes  that  the  saloon 
is  “the  poor  man’s  club  in  that  it  offers  him,  with  much 
that  is  undoubtedly  injurious,  a measure  of  fellowship  and 
recreation  for  which  he  would  look  elsewhere  in  vain.” 


3o8 


PROHIBITION. 


It  points  out  also  that  “the  laboring  man  out  of  employ- 
ment knows  that  in  some  saloons  he  is  likely  not  only  to 
find  temporary  relief,  but  assistance  in  finding  work.  * * * 
Many  a man  has  been  put  on  his  feet  by  just  this  kind 
of  help.” 

The  committee  asks  in  conclusion,  “Are  there  any  true 
substitutes  for  the  saloon  in  New  York?”  And  it  thus 
answers  the  question : 

“We  do  not  believe  that  the  saloon  keeper  considers 
that  he  has  other  serious  rivals  than  those  competing  with 
him  for  trade.” 

They  tell  us  explicitly  that  the  saloon  is  the  “Poor  Man’s 
Club” — the  social  resort  of  people  who  live  under  meager 
and  huddled  conditions,  and  that,  in  the  saloon,  men  of 
humble  means  meet  for  social  enjoyment  and  not  for  pur- 
poses of  excess  in  the  use  of  liquor. 

What  is  true  of  these  large  cities  which  were  selected 
as  special  object-lessons  of  saloon  depravity,  is  unques- 
tionably true  in  greater  degree  of  towns  and  cities  of 
smaller  size.  The  great  cities  failed  to  furnish  the  expected 
mines  of  iniquity  in  saloon  life,  and  the  report  made  of 
actual  conditions  tends  to  prove  that  the  saloon  fills  a 
want  in  the  social  life  of  the  toiling  masses  of  dense  popu- 
lations that  has  thus  far  never  been  supplied  by  any  other 
agency. 

The  riot  of  excess  and  depravity  claimed  by  anti-saloon 
agitators  as  inseparable  from  saloon  life,  was  not  found 
to  exist  at  all  by  the  fair-minded  representatives  of  the 
Committee  of  Fifty. 

We  quote  from  page  213,  “Economic  Aspects  of  the 
Liquor  Problem”: 

“If,  then,  these  saloons  do  not  personify  drunkenness 
or  crime,  they  must  exist  because  of  some  more  worthy 
and  more  normal  motive,  and  must  supply  some  more  char- 
acteristic need.” 


COMMITTEE  OF  FIFTY. 


309 


The  need  supplied  is  that  of  a place  for  the  gathering 
of  men,  who,  with  the  human  instinct  of  fellowship,  long 
for  an  exchange  of  ideas  on  topics  bearing  upon  their 
mutual  every-day  life. 

The  saloon  is  comfortable  at  all  seasons.  Its  warmth 
in  winter  is  attractive.  Its  electric  fans  in  summer  mean 
surcease  of  torture  to  the  overheated  denizens  of  tenement 
living-rooms. 

The  purchase  of  drink  is  not  compulsory.  The  tables 
and  chairs  are  free  to  all  who  are  orderly.  Within  its  walls 
all  may  meet  upon  terms  of  equality  and  with  democratic 
freedom  of  speech. 

Intemperance  is  the  rare  exception,  and  never  the  rule, 
in  city  saloon  life. 

The  boniface  does  not  desire  to  destroy  his  patrons,  as 
some  of  the  prohibition  exhorters  would  have  us  believe, 
and  he  frequently  warns  them  against  excess. 

He  does  this  for  several  reasons.  Drunkenness  is  always 
unprofitable  to  the  retail  liquor  dealer ; and  he  urges  mod- 
eration from  the  better  motives  of  decency  and  right-mind- 
edness. The  saloon  keeper  is  rarely  as  dark  as  he  is  painted 
by  those  who  oppose  his  calling. 

The  average  man  of  wealth  or  even  of  moderate  means 
perhaps  does  not  realize  that  millions  of  our  population 
have  no  parlor  or  sitting-room  or  library,  into  which  a friend 
can  be  invited  for  a social  chat  or  for  the  discussion  or 
transaction  of  necessary  business.  The  saloon  is  parlor, 
sitting-room  and  library  all  in  one,  for  thousands  of  our 
people.  Yes,  library — for  many  of  the  city  saloons  supply 
newspapers  and  periodicals  to  their  patrons,  and  this  is 
about  all  the  reading  which  many  of  their  patrons  have 
leisure  to  accomplish. 

The  selfishness  of  prosperity  is  responsible  for  much 
of  our  misconception  and  misunderstanding  of  the  problems 
of  life.  We  realize  but  slightly  the  longings,  the  aspira- 


310 


PROHIBITION. 


tions,  the  disappointments  of  the  myriads  of  the  under 
world  whose  lives  are  tuned  to  minor  keys,  but  whose 
human  yearnings  are  as  potent  and  as  deep-seated  as  our 
own. 

Comradeship,  fellowship,  the  social  instinct,  call  it  what 
you  will,  is  as  strong  in  the  breast  of  the  hod-carrier  or  the 
street  cleaner,  as  in  that  of  the  capitalist  or  the  millionaire. 
These  human  traits  will  manifest  themselves  in  all  men,  and 
will  insist  upon  some  means  of  expression  and  gratifica- 
tion. 

The  committee  refers  to  the  “waste”  incident  to  the 
saloon.  To  some  minds  the  nickel  spent  for  a glass  of 
beer  or  for  the  more  generous  “growler”  of  beer,  is  a 
waste.  To  these  critics  the  purchase  of  a case  of  wine 
for  one’s  cellar  comes  under  the  head  of  necessary^  house- 
hold expense.  Much  depends  upon  the  point  of  view. 

The  fact  remains  that  nothing  has  yet  been  found  to 
supplant  the  saloon  or  fill  the  social  wants  which  it  sup- 
plies. So  long  as  human  nature  is  what  it  is,  so  long 
will  these  needs  remain  to  be  supplied.  The  Committee 
of  Fifty  tells  us  all  this,  and  more,  had  we  the  space  to 
reproduce  its  full  report. 

When  it  ventures  beyond  the  confines  of  the  cross-roads, 
why  does  the  Anti-Saloon  League  fail  in  its  appeals  to  the 
public  to  extirpate  the  saloon? 

Urban  life  is  broad  and  cosmopolitan.  The  spirit  of  “live 
and  let  live”  thrives  in  the  city.  In  great  cities  people  do 
their  own  thinking  and  solve  their  urgent  problems  of 
existence  promptly  and  unhesitatingly.  In  the  country  the 
problems  of  life  are  not  so  critical,  and  are  usually  left  to 
solve  themselves.  Saloons  in  the  great  cities  are  con- 
ducted on  rational  lines,  and  to  meet  certain  requirements 
of  environment.  In  the  country  districts  they  are  fre- 
quently plague  spots  of  excess  and  disorder. 

The  findings  of  the  Committee  of  Fifty  elucidate  all 


COMMITTEE  OF  FIFTY. 


311 

these  points,  and  its  verdict  is  frankly  favorable  to  the  city 
saloon  in  its  social  aspects. 

No  stronger  argument  in  favor  of  the  control  and  regu- 
lation of  the  saloon  and  against  its  abolishment  can  be 
found  than  is  offered  by  this  report  of  the  Committee  of 
Fifty. 

Having  demonstrated  the  necessity  for  its  existence,  the 
only  question  remaining  is  as  to  its  proper  conduct. 

There  are  upon  the  statute  books  of  every  State  of  the 
Union  more  than  enough  laws,  were  they  fully  enforced, 
to  insure  the  maximum  of  propriety  in  the  carrying  on 
of  the  retail  liquor  business  throughout  the  United  States. 

This  confirms  the  oft-repeated  assertion  that  the  saloon, 
like  the  hotel,  the  restaurant,  and  all  other  callings  catering 
to  public  patronage,  is  just  what  its  class  of  patronage  de- 
mands. The  spring  never  rises  higher  than  its  source.  As 
the  community  is,  so  will  the  saloon  be. 


D00326818S 


DUKE  UNIVERSITY 
LIBRARY 


DURHAM,  NORTH  CAROLINA 
27706 


.O^MAT/q^ 


